regenerate_global_runner_registration_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the runner must be unregistered, which is genuine value, but it does not state that regeneration invalidates the prior token or otherwise explain the destructive consequence.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler; the endpoint reference is the only additional detail and it is useful.

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?

A destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema should say what the operation returns (a new token) and what happens to the old one. The precondition is captured, but the return and side-effect behavior are left implicit.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. The embedded endpoint POST /runners/{runner_id}/registration-token does clarify that runner_id is the runner's identifier in the path, but adds nothing about format or constraints.

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 (Regenerate) and resource (one-time registration token of an unregistered global runner). The 'global' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the close sibling regenerate_project_runner_registration_token, but the alternative is never named directly.

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 'unregistered' qualifier implies a precondition for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no reference to the project-runner variant. Usage must be inferred.

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