jenkins_rename_job

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so description adds no additional behavioral context. No mention of side effects like breaking downstream jobs, invalidating URLs, or requiring admin permissions. The bare description 'Rename a Jenkins job' repeats what the name implies.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient, though additional context would improve completeness.

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?

As a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description fails to explain return values, success/error signals, or any post-renaming effects. Given the complexity (3 params, destructive action), more detail is needed for safe invocation.

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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds useful default behavior for the optional instance parameter ('defaults to first configured instance'), which is not in the schema. No further semantic value added beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Rename' and resource 'Jenkins job', distinguishing it from create, copy, or delete operations. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar rename-like operations among siblings, such as update_job_config, which could also be misinterpreted.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy_job or update_job_config. Does not mention prerequisites, such as the job existing, or when renaming is appropriate (e.g., not while building).

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