jenkins_cancel_queue

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is disclosed. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the queue ID does not exist, or if the build is already running). It does not contradict annotations but also does not enhance transparency beyond them.

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 sentence, highly concise with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 simplicity (cancel by ID) and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is adequate. It could mention return values or side effects, but the core function is well communicated. No output schema reduces the need for such details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema for each parameter; the schema already describes 'queueId' and 'instance' adequately. The description summarizes the tool's purpose but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 verb 'Cancel', the resource 'queued build', and the identifier 'by queue ID'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'jenkins_stop_build' (running builds) and 'jenkins_delete_build' (completed builds).

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 description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., obtaining queue ID from get_queue) or warnings about irreversibility. The purpose is clear from the name, but no alternative suggestions are given.

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