jenkins_cancel_queue_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether cancellation is destructive/irreversible, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the item already started building, or what the response/error behavior is. For a cancel/delete-type mutation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is compact and efficient, using a terse one-line summary followed by a parametrized arg list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the arg descriptions add marginal value. Slightly thin but appropriately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema, this is a mutation tool with no annotations and only a minimal description. For a cancel operation, the agent needs to understand side effects, reversibility, and error conditions (e.g., canceling a non-existent or already-started item). The description is incomplete for guiding an agent through the full interaction lifecycle.

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 for the parameters. The description mentions 'queue_id: Queue item ID to cancel' and 'session_name: Jenkins session to use', but these add little beyond the schema field names themselves. It doesn't clarify where to find a queue_id (e.g., from jenkins_get_queue), what a session_name is, or any format/semantic details beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Cancel/remove') and resource ('item from the build queue'), which is precise and unambiguous. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like jenkins_get_queue_item or jenkins_get_queue, and from build-control tools like jenkins_stop_build, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jenkins_stop_build or jenkins_delete_build. It doesn't explain the relationship between the queue, builds, or when canceling a queue item is appropriate. The distinction between canceling a queued item and stopping a running build is critical context absent here.

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