Delete a specific in-app purchase localization by ID through the App Store Connect API to remove outdated or incorrect localized metadata.
DELETE /v2/inAppPurchaseLocalizations/{id} (DELETE /v2/inAppPurchaseLocalizations/{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 it discloses nothing: not that deletion is permanent/irreversible, not whether it cascades to related resources, not whether confirmation or elevated permissions are required. For a destructive DELETE endpoint this is a complete 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, but the length is a byproduct of under-specification rather than discipline, and the parenthetical duplicate of the same path is pure redundancy that wastes the reader's attention without adding 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?
Given a destructive delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum warn about permanence and side effects. The only thing covered is the single id parameter (via the schema), leaving the entire behavioral contract unstated.
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% with a single required 'id' parameter that is already documented as 'the id of the requested resource'. The description adds no format, type, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 text is a verbatim restatement of the operation path, which merely echoes the tool name 'in_app_purchase_localizations_v2_delete_instance'. It names no resource semantics (which localization fields exist, what parent IAP it belongs to) and does nothing to distinguish it from the v1 sibling in_app_purchase_localizations_delete_instance. This is tautology rather than clarification.
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 at all. The sibling list contains both in_app_purchase_localizations_delete_instance and in_app_purchase_localizations_v2_delete_instance, and the description gives the agent no basis for choosing between the v1 and v2 endpoints or for confirming prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.