Reset group runner token

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

The description adds some behavior beyond annotations: it returns a wrapper with raw token data and raises MissingParameterError/ParameterError. But it omits the critical consequence of the operation — that the previous registration token is invalidated and existing runner registrations break — while annotations declare destructiveHint=false. That omission is significant for a security-sensitive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and structured with Args/Returns/Raises, which is readable. However the Args block is boilerplate **kwargs filler rather than real parameter guidance, so a chunk of the text does not earn its place.

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 token-resetting mutation with 19 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and non-obvious side effects, the description is not complete enough to call the tool safely. It should state required scope, the invalidation effect, and which parameters are meaningful.

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 0% across 19 mostly irrelevant parameters (token, active, locked, tag_list, maximum_timeout, etc.), and the description explains none of them. It does add the useful fact that group_id is effectively required (via the MissingParameterError note), but it leaves the agent unable to tell which of the 19 schema fields actually apply.

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 plus scope: reset the registration token for a *group's* runner. The name already carries the group vs. project vs. instance split, but the description itself never distinguishes this from siblings like gitlab_reset_project_runner_token or gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (maintainer/owner permissions), and no mention of the alternatives that exist in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer the group-vs-project choice entirely from the tool name.

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