create_job_from_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses the duplicate-name failure mode, a security rule about not embedding plaintext credentials (use Jenkins-managed credential IDs), and a request-size ceiling. It stops short of covering permissions/auth requirements or what happens to the job after creation, but this is unusually rich behavioral context for an unannotated tool.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then failure/alternatives, then the security warning, then the size constraint. Every sentence carries distinct operational 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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, two-param creation tool, the description covers usage, failure behavior, security, and size limits. Return-value details are absent, but the tool's response is low-stakes and the main decision inputs are all 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% with two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies config_xml as 'raw config.xml' and adds the encoded-body size limit, but job_name is left entirely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Create a job from a raw config.xml') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling creation tools create_pipeline_job and create_multibranch_pipeline. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces and when it is the right choice.

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?

Gives explicit routing advice: 'Prefer create_pipeline_job or create_multibranch_pipeline unless you need full control of the XML,' naming the alternatives and the condition that selects them. It also states a precondition (fails if the name already exists) and a constraint on use (body must fit MCP_MAX_REQUEST_BYTES).

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