game_center_leaderboard_sets_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys only that this is a POST (a mutation) and is deprecated; it says nothing about authentication requirements, whether creation is one-shot or retryable, what side effects occur, or what the JSON:API envelope must contain beyond an opaque schema name.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with the deprecation warning first, which is the right priority. It wastes a few words by repeating the POST path verbatim inside the parentheses.

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 create tool with a free-form JSON:API body, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits too much: what the request envelope requires, the replacement for the deprecated endpoint, and any behavioral expectations. An agent would be guessing at the body structure and at whether to use this tool at all.

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 there is a single 'body' parameter whose schema description already points at components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardSetCreateRequest. The description repeats that same pointer with no additional syntax, required fields, or envelope structure guidance, so it adds nothing over the schema — the baseline 3.

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 supplies only the HTTP verb and path ('POST /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSets'), leaving the agent to infer that this creates a Game Center leaderboard set. It never states the purpose in plain language and does not distinguish this endpoint from the many sibling create tools (e.g. game_center_leaderboard_sets_v2_create_instance), which the DEPRECATED tag makes its closest competitor.

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?

The '[DEPRECATED]' prefix is a genuine when-not-to-use signal and is the most useful thing here. However, it does not name the replacement (game_center_leaderboard_sets_v2_create_instance) or state any prerequisites, so the agent must still search the sibling list to find the recommended alternative.

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