Delete a specific in-app purchase image by ID from App Store Connect. Remove outdated or incorrect images to keep your in-app purchase configuration current.
DELETE /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id} (DELETE /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does 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 delivers none of it. It does not state that deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, whether the image is detached from its parent IAP, or what the response looks like.
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 tiny but not concise in the useful sense: the same string is duplicated inside parentheses, so the only sentence is pure redundancy. Shortness here reflects under-specification rather than economy of expression.
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?
A destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema needs the description to explain impact and preconditions, and it explains nothing. An agent has no basis to know what deleting this resource affects.
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 (id) and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('the id of the requested resource'). The description adds no parameter detail, but per the schema-coverage rule the schema doing the heavy lifting yields a baseline of 3.
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 only echoes the operation ID and HTTP path (DELETE /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id}), which restates the tool name in URL form rather than explaining what the tool does in domain terms. It does convey a delete verb on an in-app-purchase image resource, so it is marginally more informative than a pure tautology, but it distinguishes nothing from the many sibling *_delete_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as in_app_purchase_images_delete_instance (the v1 variant) or in_app_purchases_v2_images_get_to_many_relationship. No prerequisites, no context, nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.