reset_runner_authentication_token_by_runner_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the auth mechanism (PRIVATE-TOKEN) and HTTP method, but it does not disclose that resetting invalidates the existing token – a critical destructive consequence. It also does not mention required permissions or side effects beyond the action itself.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and includes the endpoint for reference. No wasted words, all information earns its place.

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 an output schema, so explaining return values is not needed. However, for a destructive operation like reset, the description should disclose that the existing token becomes invalid. It provides auth context but omits the key consequence, making it only partially complete.

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 (runner_id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'using the runner ID', which maps to the parameter name but adds no extra detail such as how to find it or format constraints. It partially compensates by tying the parameter to the endpoint, but is minimal.

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 a specific action ('Reset') on a specific resource ('runner authentication token') using the runner ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reset_runner_authentication_token_by_current_token and reset_instance_runner_registration_token by specifying the identifier mechanism.

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 implies usage when you have a runner ID and need to reset its authentication token, and it names the required auth method (PRIVATE-TOKEN). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though the 'by_runner_id' in the name and description provides clear context.

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