Register new runner

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive, so the description need not restate those. It adds only that a token is required and that a Runner model is returned, but says nothing about admin permissions, scope effects, or what invalid parameters cause — significant gaps for a creation tool.

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 text is short and front-loads the purpose, but it is boilerplate docstring cruft: 'Args: **kwargs' and 'Returns/Raises' sections consume space without adding actionable detail. The kwargs framing does not match the 19-parameter signature.

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 19-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine which fields to populate or what scope values are valid from this text.

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 compensate but does not. It mentions only 'token' (via kwargs) and gives no explanation of runner_type, access_level, group_id/project_id, tag_list, locked/paused/active, or maximum_timeout. The 'Args: **kwargs' line is actively misleading given the schema's explicit named properties.

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 specific verb and resource (register a runner), which is minimally clear. However, it does not say whether the runner is registered at project, group, or instance scope, nor how it differs from siblings like gitlab_enable_project_runner or gitlab_verify_runner_authentication.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only contextual hint is the MissingParameterError note about a token, which implies a required credential but does not explain usage.

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