abort_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and the API endpoint; it does not describe the expected response, whether the stop is asynchronous, whether queued builds are removed from the queue, what permissions are required, or what errors may occur. The mutating nature is implied by 'stop', but side effects and edge cases are not addressed.

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 entire description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical endpoint path provides a useful technical reference without adding fluff. Every element earns its place.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, an agent is left without important operational details: no indication of what a successful response looks like, what happens if the build has already completed, or whether the stop is immediate or asynchronous. For a mutating CI operation, this leaves the tool under-specified.

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 the two undocumented parameters. The endpoint template 'job/{name}/{build}/stop' implies that job_name corresponds to '{name}' and build_number to '{build}', but this mapping is largely self-evident from the parameter names. The description adds little practical meaning about how to obtain or format these values beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a specific resource ('Jenkins build'), and explicitly scopes the operation to running or queued builds. The endpoint template 'job/{name}/{build}/stop' reinforces the exact action, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like trigger_jenkins_job and get_build_status.

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 clearly identifies the intended use case—when a Jenkins build is running or queued and needs to be halted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the verb and resource make it obvious that this tool is for stopping rather than starting or checking builds. It also restricts applicability to running/queued states, providing clear contextual guidance.

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