jenkins_create_credential

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. The description explains what fields map to which credential types (e.g., password holds the private key for 'ssh' type), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate credential_id (overwrite vs error), whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return/response looks like, despite there being an output schema present.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args list. Every line earns its place by adding param semantics. Not excessively verbose, though the Args block could arguably be trimmed since somewhat redundant with the schema field titles, but it adds type-mapping context that justifies its presence.

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?

With 9 params including compound type-dependent relationships, the description does a solid job covering the essential semantics. The output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The main gap is the absence of error/duplicate-handling behavior and no mention of prerequisites like an active jenkins_connect session. Overall adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the 9 parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics by mapping credential_type to specific parameter usage ('userpass' uses username/password, 'ssh' uses password field for private key, 'secret' uses secret). It also explains domain ('_' = global) and store ('system' = system store). This is substantially more than the raw schema provides.

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 'Create a new credential in Jenkins' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like jenkins_save_credentials, jenkins_get_credential, and jenkins_delete_credential, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with jenkins_save_credentials (which might be a similar operation). Purpose is clear and actionable.

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 implicitly conveys that this is for creating credentials by listing the credential types and their associated parameters. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Jenkins connection), or when to prefer this over jenkins_save_credentials. The credential_type options ('userpass', 'secret', 'ssh') give some context on appropriate usage scenarios, but exclusions are not stated.

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