delete_activity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and takes the activity and its recorded data with it. It does not mention authentication requirements or any server-side restrictions, but the core destructive profile is clearly disclosed.

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 permanent-deletion warning is front-loaded and the guidance is efficient. The paragraph explaining why the tool exists ('Exists because create_manual_activity could write a record the server had no way to remove (§D9k)') is backstory that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, data loss, and intended use. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but permission prerequisites and whether recorded activities are technically deletable are left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'ID of the activity to delete,' which gives the parameter's meaning, but the schema allows either integer or string and the description does not clarify which form is expected or provide examples.

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 and resource: 'Permanently delete an activity from Garmin Connect.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling readers like get_activity and sibling mutators like set_activity_name by naming the destructive action and target resource.

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?

Explicitly says it is 'Intended for removing a manual activity logged in error' and warns to 'think twice before pointing it at a recorded session.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-be-cautious guidance, though it does not name an alternative tool for any edge case.

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