Update runner details

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the safety burden is largely covered. The description does add real value beyond them by naming the failure modes (MissingParameterError, ParameterError) and the return wrapper containing a Runner model, which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about which fields are effectively required or what happens to unspecified fields.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with the purpose, which is good, but the Args/Returns/Raises scaffold is largely boilerplate and the '**kwargs' line is actively misleading for a tool with 19 explicit properties.

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?

A 19-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no exclusions cannot be described adequately in two sentences plus docstring boilerplate. The agent knows the tool mutates a runner but not which inputs do what, what the wrapper's Runner model contains, or what permissions/scope (project_id vs group_id) are needed.

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?

With 19 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. The Args block only mentions '**kwargs (e.g., runner_id)', which does not match the schema's 19 named properties and leaves active, locked, paused, status, tag_list, access_level, maintenance_note, and the rest entirely undocumented. The one useful signal is that runner_id is required in practice despite the schema marking everything optional.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource ('Update details for a specific runner'), which is enough to distinguish it from obviously different siblings such as gitlab_delete_runner or gitlab_pause_runner. It stops short of saying which attributes are updatable or how it relates to the many other runner tools, so it is clear but undifferentiated.

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 call this instead of gitlab_pause_runner, gitlab_reset_gitlab_runner_token, gitlab_enable_project_runner, or the read-only gitlab_get_runner. The only contextual hint is an error case (missing runner_id), not a usage condition.

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