jenkins_rename_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 mention whether renaming affects running builds, whether the job must exist, what the response/return value is, or any error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 concise with a docstring-style structure listing parameters. Every sentence earns its place, but it's under-specified rather than bloated. The format is clean and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool is a mutation (rename) with no annotations and an output schema, but the description provides no behavioral detail. It doesn't explain session requirements, what happens on rename (URL changes, downstream refs), or error handling. For a state-changing operation, this is incomplete.

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 should compensate. It lists the three parameters (job_name, new_name, session_name) with one-line glosses, but adds no semantics beyond the property titles already in the schema. For a session_name parameter, there's no hint about what sessions are or how to choose one.

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 states 'Rename a Jenkins job' with a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes reasonably from sibling tools like jenkins_copy_job and jenkins_create_job, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. Clear enough for an agent to identify the purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like copy_job, create_job, or delete_job. Not stated whether renaming affects builds, downstream consumers, or requires permissions. No exclusions or context for common usage scenarios.

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