jenkins_save_credentials

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose persistence (persisted to disk) and the security-relevant fact that an API token is stored, which is important context. However, it doesn't mention whether credentials are stored encrypted/plaintext, whether saving overwrites an existing session, or authentication/permission requirements. The persistence disclosure is valuable but security details are missing.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The additional sentences about auto-connect persistence and the per-arg labels are useful. It's efficient without redundancy, though the per-arg list somewhat duplicates schema titles.

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 4 params with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool that stores secrets. There is an output schema available, so return values need no explanation. Missing details: when to use vs jenkins_create_credential, security implications of storing a token to disk, and behavior on overwriting an existing session name. For a security-sensitive persistence operation, this is adequate but 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 must compensate for all 4 parameters. The description does provide a semantic label for each param (session_name: name to save under; url: Jenkins server URL; username: Jenkins username; api_token: Jenkins API token). However, this largely restates the parameter names/titles. It adds no format requirements, no notes on token vs password ambiguity, and no explanation of the default values' implications.

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 'Save Jenkins credentials for a session name (persisted to disk for future use)', which clearly identifies the verb (save), resource (Jenkins credentials), and key behavior (persistence). Among siblings like jenkins_create_credential and jenkins_get_credential, it's distinguishable as the session-saving consumer-type credential tool. However, it could more explicitly contrast with jenkins_create_credential (which likely creates a credential on the Jenkins server rather than locally).

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 states these credentials are 'used for auto-connect and future sessions', implying this is a setup/configuration step to be done once before using the tool suite. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this (e.g., when you need a server-side credential, use jenkins_create_credential instead). The usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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