update_global_runner

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

Annotations already declare this a destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only one caveat (JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings) and omits what a PUT actually replaces, whether omitted fields are cleared, or any permission requirements — notable gaps given destructiveHint=true.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted text. Efficient, though terseness contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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 mutation with a nested body of nine largely undocumented fields and no output schema needs substantially more explanation than this. The agent is told to 'supply API fields' without knowing what fields exist, which fields are optional, or how the update semantics work.

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 reported at 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'supply API fields in body', neither enumerating the updatable fields (name, tags, active, webhook, is_default, max_parallel_tasks) nor noting that runner_id is a path parameter. The single hint about string-encoded fields is useful but far short of the need.

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 the verb and resource ('Update global runner') and maps it to the endpoint PUT /runners/{runner_id}, which helps an agent correlate with the API. But it does not distinguish this from the sibling update_project_runner, nor say what kinds of fields are being changed.

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 indication of when to use this versus update_project_runner, set_global_runner_active, or create_global_runner. The 'global' scope is implied by the name only; no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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