game_center_leaderboards_delete_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 implies a destructive delete and flags deprecation, but says nothing about what data is destroyed, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable 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?

The description is short and front-loads the deprecation warning, which is good. However, the parenthetical repeats the identical method and path from the first clause, adding literally zero information and wasting the one extra clause it has.

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 deprecated destructive endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the migration path (which sibling replaces it), the scope of the deletion, and any auth prerequisites. The agent knows the tool exists but not how to proceed responsibly.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema documents 'id' as the requested resource's id). The description adds no format, source, or identifier-type details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific REST operation (DELETE on /v1/gameCenterLeaderboards/{id}), so the verb and resource are unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the snake_case tool name and does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling leaderboard-delete variants (e.g. game_center_leaderboards_v2_delete_instance, game_center_leaderboard_sets_delete_instance).

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 is a genuine usage signal telling the agent to avoid this tool, which is more guidance than most definitions provide. But it never names the replacement tool the agent should use instead, so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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