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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description goes further by spelling out the actual effects: no further dispatch, refused heartbeats, stops accepting jobs, and irreversibility. This is exactly the mutation impact an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, effects and irreversibility, then return shape. Zero filler and the most important constraint (cannot be undone) is front-loaded.

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?

With a single required param, no output schema, and destructive annotations already present, the description covers behavior, irreversibility, alternative action, and the return shape {id, revoked}. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and already documents that id is the runner id from gluecron_list_runners; the description reinforces 'by id'. There is little room to add syntax beyond the single string identifier, so this is appropriately complete.

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 ('Revoke a CI runner by id') and the schema even points at gluecron_list_runners as the source of the id. Clearly distinguishable from siblings like gluecron_list_runners and gluecron_create_runner_registration_token.

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?

Explains the consequence and the correct alternative ('Cannot be undone — register a new runner instead'), which routes the agent to re-registration rather than retrying a revoke. No explicit when-not guidance beyond irreversibility, but the operative context is clear.

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