game_center_leaderboards_create_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses deprecation status, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication scope, side effects of creating a leaderboard, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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-loads the deprecation warning, but the endpoint is stated twice ('POST /v1/gameCenterLeaderboards (POST /v1/gameCenterLeaderboards)'), which is pure duplication, and the pointer to the OpenAPI schema is terse to the point of being a lookup instruction rather than information.

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 one-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say what a created leaderboard is or what the deprecated path means for callers. Instead it defers entirely to an external OpenAPI schema, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently.

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 body parameter is already described in the schema as 'JSON body. Shape: components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardCreateRequest.' The description merely points at the same OpenAPI component, adding no meaning beyond the schema. 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 exposes the raw endpoint 'POST /v1/gameCenterLeaderboards', which conveys a create operation on a leaderboard resource, but it is phrased as an HTTP route rather than a task and does not distinguish this v1 tool from the many sibling create tools (notably game_center_leaderboards_v2_create_instance). An agent can infer the purpose, but only after decoding the endpoint.

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]' marker implicitly tells the agent to prefer a successor, which is real usage signal, but it never names the alternative (e.g. the v2 create tool) or states the condition under which this tool is still required. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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