Delete runner

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful details by naming failure conditions and stating that successful deletion returns no data, but it does not explain side effects such as what happens to jobs assigned to the runner.

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 front-loaded with 'Delete a runner' and structured into Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The generic kwargs line is vague, but the overall text is not bloated.

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 destructive tool with 19 mostly undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It mentions runner_id and token and the error behavior, but it does not explain scope, permissions, or how this differs from other runner deletion tools.

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% across 19 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It identifies runner_id and token as relevant or required, but leaves the other 17 parameters undocumented and does not clarify that most schema fields are likely irrelevant to deletion.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a runner.' It does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as gitlab_delete_project_runner, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like gitlab_delete_project_runner, nor does it state prerequisites such as required permissions or runner scope. It only explains error conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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