Reset token

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation. The description adds useful error conditions (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and return information, but it does not explain whether the old token is invalidated or what permissions are required.

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 main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the Args/Returns/Raises structure is easy to scan. The generic '**kwargs' section is weak, but the definition 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 19-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the definition is insufficient. It mentions the return wrapper and some errors, but it does not explain the many schema fields or how this tool differs from its reset-token siblings.

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. The description mentions runner_id and token via the Args and Raises sections, but it leaves the other 17 parameters unexplained and only vaguely refers to '**kwargs'.

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: 'Reset authentication token for a runner.' However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling reset tools such as gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token, gitlab_reset_group_runner_token, and gitlab_reset_project_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this generic reset tool versus the more specific reset siblings. The description implies it resets a runner token but gives no scope, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.

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