reset_project_runner_registration_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'reset', which implies token invalidation and regeneration, but does not state side effects (e.g., existing runners invalidated), permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible. 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is meaningful and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description is still under-specified for a destructive mutation. It does not mention authentication requirements, the impact on existing runners, or any exceptional conditions. Given the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is only partially contextualized.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only reinforces that the 'project' parameter identifies the project whose token is reset, but does not specify the expected format (e.g., project ID or URL-encoded path). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type.

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) and the specific resource (a project's runner registration token). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like reset_instance_runner_registration_token and reset_group_runner_registration_token by explicitly indicating project scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention project-level vs group/instance scope, prerequisites, or situations where another reset tool would be preferred. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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