reset_instance_runner_registration_token

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral consequences, but it only states the action and admin scope. It does not mention that resetting invalidates the existing token, affects runners already registered, or is irreversible, which is critical for a security-sensitive admin operation.

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, tightly scoped sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, resource, and admin requirement in just seven 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?

Although there are no parameters and an output schema exists to handle return values, the description is incomplete for a destructive admin action. It lacks information about side effects, invalidation of existing tokens, and when to prefer related reset tools, leaving the agent without enough context to act safely.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously), so there is no parameter ambiguity. The baseline of 4 applies because the description has nothing to add beyond the empty input schema.

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 ('Reset'), the resource ('instance runner registration token'), and the required role ('admin'). The word 'instance' distinguishes it from project/group-level reset tools and auth token reset tools among the siblings.

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 only usage hint is the parenthetical '(admin)', indicating a privilege requirement. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like reset_project_runner_registration_token or reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id, so an agent gets little help choosing among related tools.

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