create_multibranch_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses plugin dependencies, a hard payload limit ('generated XML must fit MCP_MAX_REQUEST_BYTES'), credential-handling rules ('never pass a token, password or private key'), and URL/path validity constraints. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs warned about before calling a write 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every subsequent sentence encodes a distinct constraint, so there is no filler. The constraint clauses run together in one dense block without sub-structuring, which slightly harms scannability but wastes no words.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operationally risky details (credentials, URL format, size limit) thoroughly. It does not explain what happens on name collision or what the call returns, but return format is arguably outside its remit.

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. It adds real meaning for three of five parameters: repository_url restrictions (no embedded credentials, query string, or fragment), credentials_id semantics (must name a stored Jenkins credential, not a raw secret), and script_path canonicality. job_name and description receive no guidance, leaving a small gap.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Create a multibranch Pipeline that discovers branches from a Git repository.' The 'multibranch' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling create_pipeline_job, but it never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts a single-branch pipeline, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

It gives clear operational context: plugin prerequisites (workflow-multibranch, branch-api, git) and the follow-up step 'Run scan_multibranch_pipeline afterwards to populate branches immediately', which ties this tool to a named sibling. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or when create_pipeline_job would be the better choice.

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