jenkins_disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Disconnect' implies a state change to a session, but the description doesn't mention side effects (e.g., whether in-progress operations are affected, whether this is idempotent, whether the session can be reconnected to). The disconnect semantic is fairly intuitive for a paired connect/disconnect tool, but lacks detail on consequences.

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 directly states the purpose first. The Args block is minimal but functional. One minor redundancy: the parameter info is duplicated between the description and the schema, adding little unique value, but the overall structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 a single optional parameter with a default, an output schema, and a fairly self-explanatory purpose, the description covers the core need. However, for a state-changing operation on a session, it would be helpful to mention what 'disconnect' actually does at the Jenkins API level (whether it terminates a connection established via jenkins_connect, whether it's idempotent, etc.). The description is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral questions open.

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 description names the single parameter (session_name) with its default value, which mirrors the schema's structure (default: 'default'). With schema coverage at 0% for descriptions, the param documentation in the Args section partially compensates, but it adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already shows—it repeats the parameter name and default without enriching semantics (e.g., no format constraints, no examples).

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Disconnect a specific Jenkins session'), which clearly states what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like jenkins_connect and jenkins_status, though it doesn't explicitly reference these alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't clarify what constitutes a session, how it relates to jenkins_connect, whether sessions persist across process restarts, or when disconnection would be appropriate (e.g., cleanup after failed jobs).

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