delete_gearDelete a gear item from Garmin Connect permanently using its UUID. This action is irreversible, so confirm the gear UUID before proceeding.
Delete a piece of gear/equipment. WARNING: This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gearUUID | Yes | The gear UUID to delete (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, so the description responsibly adds the explicit 'cannot be undone' warning, providing additional behavioral context beyond the annotation. No contradiction.
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?
Description is exceptionally brief—one sentence with an important warning. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action.
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 simple delete operation with one parameter, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It could mention the impact on related activities (e.g., link removal), but given the simplicity and existing annotations, it 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 single parameter gearUUID is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra parameter detail, but the schema is sufficient.
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 clearly states the action (delete) on a specific resource (a piece of gear/equipment) and adds an irreversible warning, distinguishing it from other delete tools like delete_gear_collection.
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 clear context for when to use (deleting gear) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from siblings. The warning implies caution, but no alternative tools are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.