jenkins_copy_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the copy preserves configuration and requires a session. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the target name already exists (overwrite/error), what the output/return value is, or whether this requires admin permissions. It's a mutation tool with decent but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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 with a one-line summary followed by an Arg block. Every sentence earns its place. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more behavioral detail could be added without bloating, but as-is it's efficient.

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?

Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no return-value info, the description is relatively lean. It explains the copy semantics ('identical configuration') which adds real value. However, it doesn't cover edge cases like name conflicts, session requirements, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). Adequate but with room for more context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section mirrors parameter titles ('Name of the job to copy', 'Name for the new job', 'Jenkins session to use') but adds little semantic value—these are restatements of the schema titles. It doesn't explain character constraints, naming rules, or the session parameter's default behavior.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Copy/clone an existing Jenkins job to a new name') with clear scope: the new job will have identical configuration. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jenkins_rename_job, jenkins_create_job, and jenkins_get_job. Purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the rename sibling.

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 description implies when to use it (when you want a duplicate of an existing job with a new name) by noting 'identical configuration to the source'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like jenkins_rename_job versus copy. The guidance is clear but not explicit about exclusions.

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