Permanently removes a workout template from your Garmin Connect library by workout ID; confirm with the user before calling because this action cannot be undone.
deletes the template from the workout library, irreversible IRREVERSIBLE: confirm with the user before calling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workoutId | 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 the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the irreversible consequence and a mandatory human-confirmation step, which is real value beyond structured data. It does not describe what happens to workouts already scheduled from that template, which would have completed the picture.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the destructive warning. The duplicated 'irreversible IRREVERSIBLE' is redundant emphasis and mildly wasteful, and the lowercase opening is sloppy, but there is 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety hints, the description supplies the key missing piece: irreversibility plus a confirm-first requirement. The only shortfall is the unaddressed effect on already-scheduled workouts derived from the template.
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% for the single workoutId parameter, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the id's format or source (e.g., whether it accepts the id returned by get_workouts).
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 ('the template from the workout library'), which also implicitly distinguishes it from scheduled-workout siblings like unschedule_workout. It never uses the word 'workout' explicitly and calls the resource a 'template', so an agent must infer that this targets create_workout/update_workout artifacts. Clear, but sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: confirm with the user before calling. That is genuinely actionable guidance beyond mere context. It does not name alternatives (e.g., unschedule_workout for scheduled instances vs. deleting a library template), which is the main remaining gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.