Delete project runner

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest value by stating the response wrapper carries no data on successful deletion and by naming the error types raised, but it says nothing about irreversibility, whether jobs/history tied to the runner are affected, or permission requirements.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the rest is short, structured Args/Returns/Raises boilerplate. Some waste exists in the generic kwargs and Returns wording, but the entry is compact and skimmable.

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?

This is a destructive mutation on a runner with 19 undocumented parameters and no output schema. The description does not clarify which parameter set actually applies to deletion, what happens to a runner's jobs after removal, or required permissions — significant gaps for a destructive tool, even with annotations covering the safety hints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 19 optional parameters (zero required), the description carries the full burden — yet it only names project_id and runner_id, buried under an opaque "**kwargs" heading that makes them look like generic pass-through rather than the actual schema fields. The remaining 17 parameters (active, locked, tag_list, runner_type, access_level, etc.) get no explanation at all, so an agent cannot tell which are relevant to a delete.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete a runner from a project") and the project scoping distinguishes it from the sibling gitlab_delete_runner. However, it never explicitly states the difference between deleting a project-scoped runner and the generic runner delete, leaving the agent to infer it from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as gitlab_delete_runner or gitlab_unregister_runner-style siblings. The only conditional content is the error conditions (missing project_id/runner_id), which tells the agent nothing about choosing this tool over another.

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