icu_delete_gearPermanently deletes a gear item and its maintenance reminders without affecting activities that used it.
Permanently delete a gear item and its maintenance reminders. Activities that used this gear are not affected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gear_id | Yes | ID of the gear item to delete | |
| athlete_id | No | Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.1Input schema / properties / athlete_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Athlete ID (for coaches managing multiple athletes)"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: deletion is permanent, it cascades to maintenance reminders, and lingering activities are unaffected -- exactly the side-effect detail an agent needs before a destructive call.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: permanence and cascade come first, the non-effect on activities second. Every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the cascade/permanence behavior is covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether deletion requires confirmation or whether athlete_id must match the gear owner.
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%, so both parameters are documented in structured fields and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about gear_id or the athlete_id coach-scoping 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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a gear item') and clarifies scope via the cascade note about maintenance reminders. It is distinguishable from siblings like icu_delete_event or icu_delete_workout by the resource noun, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Usage is implied by the destructive wording, and the note that activities survive removal helps an agent judge consequences. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative (e.g., icu_update_gear for retiring gear) nor preconditions such as confirmation or coach scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.