delete_runner

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. It only states the action and the HTTP verb, but does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether it removes the runner from associated projects, or any authentication requirements. This is a destructive operation, and the description lacks crucial behavioral context.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence that includes the action, resource, and endpoint. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it is a destructive delete operation, and the description omits important context like irreversibility and potential side effects. It is adequate for a minimal tool but leaves clear gaps.

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?

The schema has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by saying 'by ID' and referencing the path parameter :id, clarifying that runner_id is the identifier. However, it doesn't explain the source or format of the ID beyond the schema's integer type, offering only minimal compensation.

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: 'Delete a runner by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and includes the HTTP endpoint for precision. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_runner and get_runner by specifying the delete operation.

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 implies the usage—use this tool when you want to delete a runner—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For a straightforward delete operation, the intended use is fairly clear, but there is no discussion of prerequisites or edge cases.

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