create_runner_with_registration_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and error conditions. It only discloses the 410 legacy registration edge case, but does not mention whether this creates a persistent runner resource, whether admin permissions are required, whether the token is consumed, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every word adds value: the endpoint is specified, and the 410 error is a useful warning. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and no annotations, the description provides minimal surrounding context. It does not explain the intended operational flow, prerequisites (like obtaining a registration token), or the meaning of the many optional fields. Even though an output schema exists, the description is too sparse to support correct invocation for a tool with this complexity.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the 11 parameters. While some parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'registration_token'), others like 'maintainer_note' vs 'maintenance_note' are ambiguous and not clarified. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema field names.

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 clearly states the action ('Register a runner') and the mechanism ('with a registration token, POST /runners'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, update, or delete runners, and from tools that reset tokens. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it registers a runner using the legacy registration token endpoint. It also warns about a potential 410 error, which helps the agent anticipate when the tool might fail. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls just 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.