Delete a subscription promotional offer by ID to remove it from App Store Connect when it is no longer needed.
DELETE /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id} (DELETE /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{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, yet it says nothing about destructiveness, irreversibility, cascade effects on related price/offer data, or required permissions. The raw 'DELETE' token is the only hint of a mutation, which the tool name already conveys.
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 short but redundant: the same path 'DELETE /v1/subscriptionPromotionalOffers/{id}' appears twice, once in parentheses. The duplication wastes space rather than front-loading useful 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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain permanence, permissions, and error behavior. None of that is present, leaving the agent with no operational context for invoking a delete correctly.
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 required parameter 'id' with 100% schema description coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, which lands at the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 HTTP method and path for the same resource named in the tool ID, so it restates rather than explains purpose. It does not distinguish this delete from its obvious siblings (subscription_promotional_offers_get_instance, subscription_promotional_offers_update_instance) beyond the verb implied by the name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the get or update variants on the same resource. The agent gets nothing about when deletion is appropriate versus updating the promotional offer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.