regenerate_project_runner_registration_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the token is one-time and only applies to runners that are not yet registered — but it omits what regeneration does to any existing token and whether auth/permissions are required.

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 tight sentences: the action and its critical precondition come first, the routing detail second. Nothing is redundant.

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 mutating, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, so the description should say what comes back (the new token) and what happens on failure or to the prior token. The precondition is covered; the return and side-effect story is not.

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 description must compensate. It partially does by embedding the endpoint path POST /project/{project_id}/runners/{runner_id}/registration-token, which clarifies the role of both parameters, but adds no constraint or format 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 (regenerate) plus resource (one-time registration token) and scope (unregistered project runner), which is enough to separate it from regenerate_global_runner_registration_token at the 'project' vs 'global' level. It never names the sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 phrase 'of an unregistered project runner' implies a precondition but doesn't state when an agent should call this versus creating a runner, fetching a token elsewhere, or using the global variant. Usage is inferred, not instructed.

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