Remove a specific weigh-in from Garmin Connect data by providing its date and unique weight ID. This action cannot be undone, so confirm before using.
Deletes one weigh-in, by date and its weightPk. IRREVERSIBLE: confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cdate | Yes | Calendar date, YYYY-MM-DD (UTC) | |
| weightPk | Yes |
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 openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond them by asserting the operation is IRREVERSIBLE (stronger than 'destructive') and imposing a confirm-first workflow, which is useful added context. It still omits whether the delete cascades 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, then the risk warning. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
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, no-output-schema tool, the critical risk (irreversibility) and the confirmation requirement are surfaced, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The remaining gaps are how to source weightPk and the sibling boundary.
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 only 50%: cdate is documented with format guidance but weightPk is bare. The description merely restates the two field names as the identifier without explaining what weightPk is or how an agent obtains it, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameter.
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?
States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (one weigh-in) plus the identifying fields (date, weightPk). The word "one" implicitly separates it from the plural sibling delete_weigh_ins, but it never names that alternative, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
Provides a calling precondition ("confirm with the user before calling"), which is a genuine usage instruction. However it gives no guidance on when to pick this versus delete_weigh_ins for bulk removal or versus the get_weigh_ins tools to find a weightPk, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.