Job actions

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (destructiveHint=true). It merely repeats the action enum from the schema without explaining side effects (e.g., erasing a job deletes its trace) or noting that retry/cancel may fail depending on job status.

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 a single clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. No filler or redundancy, and it avoids restating the tool name.

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 destructive tool with multiple possible actions, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about post-conditions, error scenarios, or how actions interact (e.g., 'play' triggers a manual job, 'erase' removes logs). No output schema exists, so the description should have provided more operational context.

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 only 33% (only project_id has a description). The description does not compensate by explaining job_id or the meaning of each action value; it just lists verbs that mirror the enum, adding no new semantic value.

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 identifies the tool as operating on a CI job with a specific set of verbs (inspects, retries, cancels, runs, erases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitlab_list_jobs or gitlab_get_job_log, which focus on listing or reading logs.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use a dedicated get/retry endpoint). The description only lists actions without context on job state requirements, permissions, or fallback behavior.

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