Deletes a specific win-back offer from App Store Connect by its ID, removing that offer so it no longer applies to subscribers.
DELETE /v1/winBackOffers/{id} (DELETE /v1/winBackOffers/{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 the operation is destructive, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to dependent prices (win_back_offers_prices_*), or any auth requirements. The raw HTTP route string is not behavioral disclosure.
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 same route string is repeated twice with zero informational gain, and no front-loaded purpose statement precedes it. Redundant duplication rather than concision.
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, no output schema, and no supporting description, the definition is completely inadequate — an agent gets no indication of irreversibility, side effects, or failure modes before invoking a delete.
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?
Only one parameter (id) and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, lookup, or sourcing guidance for the id even though that would be the one place it could add value.
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 essentially the tool name restated as an HTTP route: 'DELETE /v1/winBackOffers/{id}', duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys a delete on a winBackOffers resource but adds no plain-language verb or scope beyond what the name already encodes, and gives no differentiation from win_back_offers_get_instance / update_instance / create_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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right tool for a given deletion intent versus any other destructive sibling such as win_back_offers_update_instance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.