jenkins_submit_input_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sends an input action but doesn't describe side effects (e.g., whether this modifies build state, requires authentication, or has rate limits), return values, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and integration with sibling tools (e.g., relationship to 'jenkins_get_pending_actions'). For a tool that modifies Jenkins state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'decisionUrl' documented as 'URL de la decisión (proceedUrl o abortUrl)'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how to obtain this URL or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Enviar una acción de input') and the target resource ('a Jenkins'), with specific verbs 'aprobar/rechazar' indicating approval/rejection. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jenkins_start_job' or 'jenkins_stop_job' by focusing on input actions rather than job control or status retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is for pending actions, which could be inferred from sibling 'jenkins_get_pending_actions' but isn't stated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for Jenkins input actions but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a pending action from 'jenkins_get_pending_actions'), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools. This leaves the agent to infer context without clear direction.

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