reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only mentions the reset action and endpoint, but does not state that the old token will be invalidated, whether special permissions are required, or what happens to the runner. This is a significant transparency 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 sentence that concisely states the action and includes the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is still incomplete because it lacks side-effect disclosure and usage guidance. The destructive nature of resetting a token is not mentioned, and no alternative tools are referenced. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke 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 parameter (authentication_token) with no description, and the description's phrase 'using the current token' helps clarify its meaning. However, it does not explicitly link the parameter to that concept or provide any additional format/validation details. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but coverage from schema is 0%, so some compensation exists but remains partial.

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 a runner authentication token using the current token', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id by specifying the token-based method, and also provides the endpoint for clarity.

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 phrase 'using the current token' implies the scenario where the current token is available, contrasting with the runner-id approach. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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