delete_course

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

The description carries the full behavioral burden because no annotations are provided. It identifies the action as destructive, but does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or irreversible, what dependent data may be affected, whether authorization is required, or how invalid IDs are handled. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 very compact and well-structured: the first sentence states the operation, and the second line defines the sole parameter and how to source it. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential call information: what to delete and how to get a valid ID. It lacks explicit irreversibility or edge-case caveats, but the overall operation is simple and the output schema covers return shape.

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 0%, and the description meaningfully compensates by explaining that `course_id` is the ID of the course to delete and by directing the agent to `get_courses` as the reliable source of valid IDs. This adds real value beyond the bare integer field.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Delete a course') and identifies the exact domain ('Garmin Connect'), making the intended tool unambiguous even among siblings like `delete_workout`, `delete_weigh_ins`, and `upload_course`. No other plausible interpretation exists.

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?

It gives a genuine usage hint by telling the agent to obtain course IDs from `get_courses`, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or state any exclusions. The usage context remains mostly implied rather than explicitly spelled out.

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