jenkins_update_job_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'replaces the entire job configuration' warning is valuable and discloses destructive behavior. However, it doesn't mention whether the job must be disabled to update, whether the update invalidates running builds, what happens to unchanged settings, or auth requirements. The key destructive trait is disclosed but other operational behaviors are absent.

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 front-loads the critical warning before the Args list. The warning placement is effective. The Args section adds marginal value since parameter meanings are self-evident from names, but it's not wasteful. One or two sentences could be trimmed without loss.

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 has an output schema (not shown in full), so return format is partially handled elsewhere. For a destructive mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description provides the essential safety warning but lacks operational details like whether the job needs to be disabled, whether this can break a running pipeline, or preconditions. It's minimally adequate but missing deeper behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 the three args (job_name, config_xml, session_name) with brief one-line meanings, but adds no additional context beyond the schema. Notably, it doesn't explain that config_xml must be valid XML or complete config, nor does it describe what format/source is expected. The parameter names themselves are fairly self-descriptive, but the description adds nothing over the bare schema.

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 (update), resource (job's XML configuration), and specifically states it 'replaces the entire job configuration', making it distinct from jenkins_get_job_config and other job-manipulation siblings. The full replacement semantics are explicitly called out.

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 includes the critical warning that this replaces the entire config, which is essential usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this rather than jenkins_create_job, jenkins_enable_job, or when a partial update is possible. No exclusions or alternative tool references.

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