delete_global_runner

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the REST path — no statement about irreversibility, whether the runner must be unattached from projects, or what happens to jobs assigned to it.

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?

It is short and front-loads the operation, which is good. However, the second sentence merely restates the HTTP endpoint and carries no decision-relevant information for an agent.

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 mutation with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description should cover preconditions and consequences. It leaves the agent without guidance on side effects, dependent resources, or confirmation requirements.

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 single runner_id parameter is documented only as an integer with minimum 1. The description does not explain where to obtain that ID (e.g., via list_global_runners) or what it identifies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Delete global runner"), which is clear enough for an agent to identify the operation. The word "global" implicitly separates it from the many project-scoped siblings such as delete_project_runner, but the description never makes that distinction explicit.

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 delete_project_runner, update_global_runner, or set_global_runner_active. No prerequisites or warnings about what conditions must hold before a runner can be deleted are given.

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