create_global_runner

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only the endpoint and a string-encoding caveat; it does not disclose side effects such as credential creation, default inactive/registered behavior, or required permissions.

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 short, front-loaded with the action and endpoint, and contains no filler. The final string-encoding sentence is somewhat cryptic, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 destructive creation tool with a complex nested body and no output schema, the description is missing the details an agent needs: required body fields, default values, the registered-runner workflow, and how this differs from create_project_runner. The endpoint and body reference alone are not sufficient context.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate for a nested body with many fields. Instead it only says to 'Supply API fields in body' and warns that JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings, without naming fields, required values, defaults, or the meaning of 'registered' and 'project_id'.

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 and resource: 'Add global runner' with the endpoint POST /runners. It is distinguishable from create_project_runner by the 'global' resource name, though it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over the project-level sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling create_project_runner, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the global-versus-project decision from the name alone.

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