trigger_jenkins_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral nuance: a future start_at causes a delay=NNNsec parameter so the build does not start immediately. However, it does not mention other relevant traits such as authentication requirements, whether the trigger is asynchronous, or what happens on failure, leaving the disclosure incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and then adds a concise conditional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core trigger action and a key timing nuance, but it omits return-value expectations and asynchronous behavior. This is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for an agent that needs to know what to expect after invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds useful behavior for start_at beyond the schema's 'ISO-8601 time' note, but it provides no semantic meaning for job_name or the parameters object, which remain effectively unexplained.

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 and resource: 'Trigger a Jenkins job with parameters.' This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools that check availability, get status, or abort builds, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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 usage context is implied by the verb 'Trigger' and the mention of parameters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_build_status or abort_build. The start_at delay behavior provides some conditional context, but no when-not-to-use guidance.

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