game_center_matchmaking_queues_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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does almost none. The HTTP verb 'DELETE' signals a destructive mutation, but the description never states what is destroyed, whether associated rules or sessions are affected, whether the action is reversible, or what authorization is required.

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 text is very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical duplicates the path verbatim and is pure waste. It is concise without being informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot learn from it whether deletion is permanent, what side effects occur, or what a successful response looks like.

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 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no format, scope, or sourcing guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all 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 is an HTTP verb+path restatement of the tool name, with the path repeated twice in parentheses. It technically identifies the resource (matchmaking queues) and the operation (DELETE), but adds no plain-language purpose and does not differentiate itself from sibling delete tools such as game_center_matchmaking_rules_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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a matchmaking queue versus updating it, nor any prerequisites, cascade warnings, or references to alternatives like game_center_matchmaking_queues_update_instance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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