delete_course

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and target without noting that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or may affect other data referencing the course. For a destructive operation, this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 description is two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and an Args block mapping directly to the single parameter. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or redundant wording.

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 delete operation with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, the target, and how to obtain the required ID. The only notable absence is an explicit warning about destructive consequences, which is already captured under behavioral transparency.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It does by explaining that course_id is the ID of the course to delete and telling the agent to get IDs from get_courses. This clearly orients the agent on how to construct a valid call.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('course from Garmin Connect'), making the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling deletion tools like delete_workout, but the course resource is clearly named, so an agent can identify the right tool.

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?

The description provides a useful workflow hint: get course_id from get_courses. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, list exclusions, or warn about prerequisites. Since it is the only course-deletion tool among the siblings, the lack of explicit routing is a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.