game_center_leaderboard_versions_v2_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 behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no mention of permissions, required relationships, side effects, or whether the created version is mutable/deletable. Referencing components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardVersionV2CreateRequest is the only added context, and it is not behavioral.

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 with the endpoint, but the parenthetical '(POST /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardVersions)' duplicates the preceding text verbatim, which is pure waste. The remaining sentence is a bare pointer to an external schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API body, the agent needs at least the required envelope structure or creation semantics. The description defers entirely to an OpenAPI schema the agent may not have in context, leaving it under-informed.

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% and there is a single 'body' parameter, so per the baseline the schema already documents the parameter. The description only re-points at the same schema reference the schema field already gives, adding no extra syntax or format detail.

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 conveys the operation only through the raw HTTP verb/path ('POST /v2/gameCenterLeaderboardVersions'), and the tool name carries the 'create_instance' meaning. It never states in plain language what is being created or that it is a Game Center leaderboard version, and it does not distinguish itself from the many sibling create_instance tools.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance at all. Among hundreds of sibling tools (including get_instance/update_instance variants and the v2 leaderboard family), the description gives the agent nothing to route on.

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