gitea_runner_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose two safety-relevant traits: a dry run previews the target and a busy runner causes refusal. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or the failure response, which matters for a delete tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the destructive action front-loaded, followed by the preview behavior and the refusal condition. No wasted words.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, preview semantics, and the key failure mode; the schema handles input parameters. It could still note reversibility or permissions, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already fully explains name, apply, and planHash including the planHash single-use constraint. The description's mention of 'dry run' adds only mild reinforcement, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — 'Delete a runner registration in Gitea' — and the parenthetical 'a node taken out of service' clarifies what deletion means. This distinguishes it from sibling gitea_runner_register and gitea_runners without needing their schemas.

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?

Gives real usage context: the dry-run-then-apply workflow is implied, and the precondition 'a busy runner is refused' tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not explicitly route to a sibling or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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