reset_group_runner_registration_token

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Reset', which implies a mutation but fails to mention whether the old token is invalidated, what permissions are required, or any side effects. 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise, though it could include more behavioral details without becoming cumbersome.

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, but as a mutation tool with no annotations, it requires more context about the effect of resetting the token. The output schema covers return values, but the description lacks information about invalidation of the old token or permissions, making it incomplete.

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 does not elaborate on group_id beyond the noun 'group'. It does not explain how to obtain the group_id or any constraints, leaving the parameter semantics under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb 'reset' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a group's runner registration token'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reset_project_runner_registration_token and reset_instance_runner_registration_token by explicitly scoping to groups.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reset_project_runner_registration_token. However, the tool name and context imply usage for group-scoped tokens, providing a clear but unstated differentiation.

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