delete_project_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. The description adds only a REST endpoint string and says nothing about irreversibility, effect on assigned jobs, or required permissions, so it contributes almost nothing beyond structured data.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The REST path sentence is marginally redundant with the tool name but does convey the resource hierarchy, so it roughly earns its space.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation; the description should at least state whether deletion is permanent, what happens to the runner's jobs, or what permissions are needed. Instead it restates the name and a raw endpoint.

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 coverage is 0%, so the two integer params carry no descriptions. The URL template 'DELETE /project/{project_id}/runners/{runner_id}' does map each parameter to its role and confirms the project→runner hierarchy, but adds no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete project runner'), which is enough to separate it from delete_global_runner and update_project_runner by name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. pausing/disabling the runner first, permission requirements), and never names the alternative tool for global runners. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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