delete_runner_by_authentication_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions the HTTP method and that it does not use PRIVATE-TOKEN. It does not explain whether the deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, whether the action is reversible, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds an important caveat about PRIVATE-TOKEN. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks crucial context for a destructive operation, such as permanence, permission requirements, and how it differs from other runner deletion/reset tools. There are clear gaps that could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

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 required parameter (authentication_token) with 0% description coverage. The description merely restates the parameter name ('using its authentication token') without adding meaning such as how to obtain the token, its format, or what it represents. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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), the resource (a runner), and the specific mechanism (using its authentication token). It also provides the exact API endpoint (DELETE /runners with token), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_runner (likely by ID) and reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token.

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 clearly implies the tool should be used when you have a runner's authentication token and need to delete the runner. It explicitly notes that it does not use PRIVATE-TOKEN, which differentiates it from other GitLab API tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' tier.

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