delete_activityDelete a Garmin Connect activity by its unique ID to clean up or remove unwanted workout records. This action is permanent and cannot be undone.
Delete an activity from Garmin Connect. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activityId | Yes | The unique activity identifier (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, so description credit is earned for adding the explicit 'WARNING: This action cannot be undone.' This communicates irreversibility beyond the annotation flag, helping the agent understand the consequence. It does not add details about authorization, side effects, or response format, but it does provide meaningful warning context.
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 sentences and zero wasteful words. It front-loads the action ('Delete an activity') and then adds a crucial warning. Every part contributes to a focused, effective tool description.
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?
The tool is simple with a single parameter, one required field, and relevant annotations. The description covers the primary behavior and irreversibility. It does not specify what happens on success or whether the activity belongs to a required user, but for a minimal destructive operation with a clear schema, the description is sufficiently complete.
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 has 100% description coverage for activityId, so the schema already captures the parameter's meaning and required status. The description adds no further param syntax, semantics, or examples beyond what the schema defines, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an activity from Garmin Connect.' It clearly differentiates from sibling delete tools (delete_workout, delete_gear, etc.) by specifying activity as the target.
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 implies usage for permanently removing an activity but does not provide explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations. There is no mention of prerequisites or cases where this tool should not be used, but the destructive intent is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.