jenkins_install_plugin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Install' implies a mutating operation, but the description doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether it overrides existing versions, permissions needed, or the post-install state (requires restart). The 'may need a restart' note is useful but minimal for a destructive/mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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: two sentences plus an Args block that maps directly to parameters. No wasted prose. Well structured for parsing.

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?

There is an output schema present, which reduces the need to document return values. However, for a plugin-install operation with no annotations and no mention of failure modes, restart requirement beyond a passing note, or how to verify installation, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the essentials without being exhaustive.

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. The Args section explains plugin_name ('short name'), version ('Specific version to install (empty = latest)'), and session_name ('Jenkins session to use'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond parameter names alone, but it is terse and could be richer (e.g., version format, where plugin names come from).

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 ('Install'), the resource ('a Jenkins plugin'), and the mechanism (downloaded and installed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jenkins_list_plugins and jenkins_get_plugin_info, which read plugin data rather than install. The scope is clear.

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 says 'Jenkins may need a restart to activate it,' which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus alternatives like jenkins_run_groovy_script, mention that the plugin must be available in the update center, or note prerequisites like being connected. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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