copy_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses what the copy inherits (settings, enabled/disabled state), what is deliberately not copied (build history, workspaces), an environment-level constraint (MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS), and the Jenkins permissions required (Job/ExtendedRead on source, Job/Create on target parent, Job/Configure when secrets are redacted). It stops short of stating what happens if the target already exists or whether it errors/overwrites.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the copy semantics, then the constraints. Four dense sentences with almost no filler; the permission clause reads as a list but every item is actionable information rather than padding.

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 two-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers inheritance semantics, scope gating, and authorization. The remaining gap is failure behavior (existing target, permission-denied outcome), which an agent would need to call this confidently, but the essentials are present.

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 two parameters (source_job, target_job) rely entirely on the description. It adds a meaningful constraint that both must be in MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS, but gives no format guidance (full path vs name), no path-shape example, and no statement on whether target_job may pre-exist.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy an existing job's configuration to a new name') and explicitly scopes what is and isn't inherited (settings/state yes, history/workspaces no). That scope statement implicitly separates it from siblings like create_job_from_xml and update_job_config, though no sibling is named.

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?

Provides real operating context (both jobs must be inside MCP_ALLOWED_JOBS, source/target permission requirements) but never says when to prefer this over create_job_from_xml, create_pipeline_job, or update_job_config, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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