set_global_runner_active

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and a body-formatting note, but says nothing about the practical consequence of toggling a runner offline (e.g., running jobs), which is the key behavioral risk here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by endpoint and body guidance. No filler, though the 'JSON-encoded string fields' remark is only marginally relevant given the body is a single boolean.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin: it omits the effect of deactivation, permission requirements, and error behavior on an invalid runner_id.

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 description must carry parameter meaning; it does partially by embedding runner_id in the path and noting body fields must match the API schema. The 'active' boolean itself is never explained (enable vs disable semantics), so compensation is incomplete.

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 ('Set global runner active state') and even names the endpoint, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling set_project_runner_active, leaving the global-vs-project scope distinction to be inferred.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus set_project_runner_active, no prerequisites (permissions, whether the runner must be idle), and no note on what happens to in-flight tasks when deactivating. The agent must infer all selection context.

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