jenkins_delete_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The warning that jobs in the view are NOT deleted is excellent safety transparency for a delete operation. It clarifies the scope of destruction, which is the most critical behavioral trait for a DELETE tool. However, it doesn't mention what happens to the empty view state or any permission requirements.

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 clear single-sentence purpose, a prominent safety warning, and a brief args list. The warning is appropriately front-loaded. Slightly could be tighter, but there is no wasted content.

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?

For a 2-param delete tool, the description adequately covers the safety-critical behavior (jobs not deleted). However, given there's no annotation coverage and the delete operation has side effects, it could mention prerequisites (e.g., session must be connected) or permission requirements. The args are described but thinly. 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'view_name' and 'session_name' with brief one-line descriptions in the args block, which is minimal but adequate — the arg descriptions essentially restate the schema property names without adding semantic depth or format/validation details.

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 tool states it deletes a Jenkins view clearly with verb+resource. It distinguishes from delete_job by clarifying the tool targets views specifically, though sibling tools like delete_job vs delete_view could be more explicitly differentiated. The non-destructive clarifier about jobs not being deleted adds purpose scope.

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 indicates when to use (when you need to remove a view) but provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. No comparison against similar tools like delete_job or list_views. The warning about views not deleting jobs is useful context but isn't usage-guideline guidance.

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