jenkins_delete_credential

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it doesn't state that deletion is a destructive, irreversible mutation, what happens on success/failure, or whether it requires specific permissions. The only behavior it discloses is the arg list, which is already in the schema.

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 appropriately brief and the parameter list is argparse-style (unusual for MCP tool descriptions). It's concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but the Args section largely duplicates what the schema already provides, reducing its added value relative to length.

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 tool with no annotations, no behavioral context, and 0% schema parameter coverage is underspecified. It doesn't mention irreversible consequences, session requirements, error conditions, or what distinguishes a 'system' store from other stores. For an irreversible operation, this is inadequate even with an output schema present.

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 4 parameters. It lists each parameter with a brief parenthetical ('_' = global, 'system' = system store), which adds some value over the bare schema defaults. However, these are terse and don't explain the domains/stores concept, valid values for domain (folder paths? 'system' store vs others?), or relationship between these parameters.

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+resource ('Delete a credential from Jenkins'), which accurately distinguishes it from credential creation and listing siblings like jenkins_create_credential and jenkins_list_credentials. It's clear but doesn't go beyond the name to differentiate scope or nuances from other credential-related tools.

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 tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing jenkins_connect first), mention that credential deletion is irreversible, or contrast with jenkins_create_credential for editing existing credentials (delete + recreate pattern). The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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