gitea_runner_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that a fresh registration token is fetched from the Gitea API at run time and passed via environment variable, never through the plan or journal (a meaningful security/secrets disclosure), and that post-conditions are verified (act_runner active, label exactly node-<name>:host). It stops short of stating required Gitea API credentials/permissions or reversibility.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every clause (token handling, verification, label correctness) adds operational value. It is dense with parentheticals and reads as one long sentence, which slightly hurts scannability, but there is no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the secrets handling, and the success verification. It does not describe the dry-run/planHash return content, though the schema partially covers the apply workflow, leaving a small gap.

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 schema coverage at 67%, the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it documents the default script path and its positional arguments (<name> <token>), and explains the name-to-label mapping (label rendered as node-<name>:host). It leaves repo/apply semantics largely to the schema, so it complements rather than duplicates.

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 (register) and resource (Gitea Actions runner on a node), plus the exact mechanism used (runner bootstrap script from the MIA_REPOS checkout, default ops:deploy/bootstrap-node-runner.sh). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling gitea_runner_remove (the inverse operation) and gitea_runners (read-only listing).

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?

The description conveys the operational context (registering a runner via a repo script, dry-run/apply implied by the schema) but never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It assumes the agent already knows it wants to register a runner; sibling gitea_runner_remove is not referenced for contrast.

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