jenkins_enable_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether enabling requires job ownership/permissions, whether the operation is immediately effective, whether a running build is affected, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, which is good. However, the Arg/param listing is terse and repeats names without enriching meaning. It's efficient but under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 params, the description should do more. It doesn't mention permissions, side effects, confirmation/response behavior, or clarify session_name semantics. An output schema exists, so return-format documentation is not required, but behavioral and parameter completeness is lacking.

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 'job_name: Full job name' and 'session_name: Jenkins session to use', which adds a minimal gloss but no additional semantics beyond what parameter names imply. The description doesn't clarify job_name format (path syntax?), required status of session_name, or relationship between the two.

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 tool's purpose: enable a disabled job so it can be built again. It uses a specific verb+resource pairing (enable job) and directly complements its sibling jenkins_disable_job. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond the implicit opposite role.

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 implies usage context ('Enable a disabled Jenkins job') but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of alternatives (e.g., jenkins_disable_job for the reverse, or requiring an existing disabled job). A capable agent could infer usage but there's no explicit guidance.

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