jenkins_enable_job

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations state readOnlyHint=false (modification) and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not clarify behavior if the job is already enabled, nor does it discuss error states or side effects.

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 concise phrase with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and could be improved with a full sentence, but it effectively communicates the core function.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple enable operation given that parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, it omits details like return value, error conditions, or the prerequisite that the job must be disabled, leaving some gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (jobName and instance) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 'Enable a disabled job' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It directly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'jenkins_disable_job', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply usage for enabling disabled jobs, but there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or comparison to other tools like 'jenkins_disable_job'.

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