Permanently removes a Garmin Connect course by numeric ID. Irreversible; confirm with the user before calling, and allow a few seconds after creation.
DELETE /course-service/course/{courseId}, resolves null (204). IRREVERSIBLE. May 429 "not yet ready" for a few seconds after creation IRREVERSIBLE: confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| courseId | Yes | Numeric id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds real value: the 204/null response shape, the irreversibility warning, and a rate-limit/readiness timing caveat (429 shortly after creation). These are non-obvious behaviors not present in the structured fields.
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 content is short but sloppy: 'IRREVERSIBLE' is repeated twice in close succession and the sentence about the 429 is awkwardly fused into the rest. The core warnings are front-loaded, but redundancy and phrasing cost it.
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 single-param destructive tool with an output schema absent, the description covers the key agent needs: what happens on success (204/null), that the action cannot be undone, and a timing hazard. Only the when-to-use-vs-alternatives dimension is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with a single required courseId documented as 'Numeric id', so the schema carries the parameter detail. The description only shows courseId interpolated in the path template and adds no format, range, or source guidance beyond that, matching the baseline 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 gives a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (course) via the HTTP endpoint, clearly identifying the tool as removing a course. It is distinguishable from sibling deletes (delete_activity, delete_workout, delete_gear) by the resource, though it leans on the raw endpoint rather than a plain-language statement.
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?
It gives some usage context — confirm with the user before calling, and awareness of a possible 429 shortly after creation — but never states when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., update_course, get_course) or why deletion is the correct choice in a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.