jenkins_disable_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary effect (prevents new builds) but doesn't disclose whether existing/running builds are affected, whether disabling is reversible, whether it requires admin permissions, or what the return/response looks like despite having an output schema. The description adds the 'prevents new builds' clarification, which is useful, but leaves many behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is brief. However, it's written in Python docstring format ('Args:') which is wasted structure for a tool description, and the parenthetical could be integrated more cleanly. It's adequately concise but the format isn't optimal.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage but with an output schema present, the description should explain more. It doesn't describe what the response contains, whether disabling affects in-progress builds, how sessions work, or the enable counterpart. A moderately complex tool like this needs a bit more behavioral and session context to be self-sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should help with parameters. 'job_name' is described as 'Full job name' which adds minor meaning beyond the schema's raw 'Job Name' title. 'session_name' is described as 'Jenkins session to use', which adds context but doesn't explain what sessions are or how they're obtained. The two Args lines offer marginal value over the schema.

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 ('Disable a Jenkins job') and provides a helpful parenthetical clarification (prevents new builds from being triggered). It distinguishes from sibling jenkins_enable_job by specifying the 'disable' direction, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use jenkins_disable_job vs jenkins_quiet_down, or prerequisites like needing an existing job). The disable/enable relationship with the sibling is implicit but not explicitly articulated.

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