Reset project runner token

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds that a wrapper with raw token data is returned and which errors can be raised, which is useful. However it omits the central behavioral fact for this operation: that resetting invalidates the existing registration token and breaks the runner until it is re-registered.

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 but follows a generic docstring skeleton whose Args block is wasted space given there is no real **kwargs parameter. The substantive content (return shape, errors) is present but not front-loaded with the operational warning that matters most.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin: it does not explain which parameters are meaningful, does not state permissions, and does not describe what happens to the old token. The return-value note is helpful but does not compensate.

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 carries the full burden, yet its only parameter text is 'Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id)' — boilerplate that does not even match the flat schema (additionalProperties: false). Only project_id is hinted at, and its meaning is inferred from the Raises block rather than documented; the other 18 fields are unexplained.

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 ('Reset') and resource ('registration token for a project's runner'), which is enough to distinguish it from read-only siblings like gitlab_get_project_runners. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings gitlab_reset_group_runner_token / gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token, but the 'project' scope is stated.

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 versus alternative reset tools, no prerequisites (e.g., maintainer/owner role), and no warning about the operational consequence of resetting a runner token. The 'Raises' section only describes error conditions, not usage context.

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