game_center_leaderboards_v2_create_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing: no auth/permission requirements, no side effects, no indication of what is created or whether the parent detail/group relation is required. For a mutation tool this is a serious omission.

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, but the parenthetical '(POST /v2/gameCenterLeaderboards)' repeats the immediately preceding text verbatim, so the sole sentence wastes half its length on redundancy rather than earning its place.

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 operation with a nested JSON:API body, no annotations and no output schema, the description delegates all substance to an external OpenAPI spec an agent may not be able to resolve. It leaves far too much unstated about what creating a v2 leaderboard entails.

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 the single body param is documented there as 'Shape: components.schemas.GameCenterLeaderboardV2CreateRequest.' The description merely duplicates that exact pointer, adding no syntax, required fields, or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 underlying HTTP operation (POST /v2/gameCenterLeaderboards), which does convey 'create a Game Center leaderboard' at the v2 resource. However, it is a mechanical restatement of the endpoint/name rather than a natural-language statement of purpose, and it draws no distinction from the many sibling v2 Game Center 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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (v1 game_center_leaderboards_create_instance, game_center_leaderboards_v2_update_instance, or the set/version flows). Only the v2 endpoint path implicitly signals the v2 API variant.

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