game_center_leaderboard_set_localizations_v2_delete_instance

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'DELETE' signals a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, cascading effects on related resources, required permissions, or error behavior on a missing id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but the same path is printed twice (once bare, once in parentheses), which is pure redundancy rather than earned brevity. The text is minimal because it is under-specified, not because it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is deleted and what the caller gets back. It supplies neither, leaving the agent with only the endpoint signature.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no format, type, or sourcing detail beyond the path template, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb (DELETE) and a resource path (gameCenterLeaderboardSetLocalizations/{id}), so an agent can tell it removes a Game Center leaderboard set localization. However, it is essentially the tool name restated in HTTP form, with no differentiation from the many sibling delete tools (e.g. game_center_leaderboard_set_localizations_delete_instance, the non-v2 variant).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the v1/v2 alternatives that exist in the sibling list. The agent must infer everything from the endpoint path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.