game_center_leaderboard_sets_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, and it discloses almost nothing. For a destructive endpoint it fails to state that the operation is irreversible, that it likely cascades to member/localization/image sub-resources, or that specific auth/scopes are required. 'DELETE' alone conveys only the bare mutation semantics.

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?

The description is short, but its entire content is the path string repeated twice in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded information. It is concise only by virtue of saying almost nothing.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is not complete enough: it omits irreversibility, side effects, and required permissions. An agent cannot call this safely using the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100% with a single documented 'id' parameter ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.

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 states a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (v2/gameCenterLeaderboardSets/{id}), so an agent can infer it removes a leaderboard set. However, the text is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name with no differentiation from the many sibling delete tools, in particular game_center_leaderboard_sets_delete_instance (the v1 variant). Differentiation relies entirely on the name, not the description.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The operation is implicit from 'DELETE', but nothing tells the agent under what conditions this v2 deletion should be preferred over its siblings.

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