submit_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: omission of declared parameters settles with null (no fallback to defaults), timeout ambiguity, and the fact that a settled input rejects second submissions. These go beyond typical expectations and fully inform the agent of risks.

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 lengthy but well-organized with Warnings, Args, and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary warnings. Though a bit verbose, every sentence carries value for a complex tool; the structure aids readability.

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 complexity (Jenkins input handling, edge cases), the description covers everything: parameter semantics, return format, error scenarios, and fallback behavior. It explicitly describes the return dict structure and explains the action values. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter in the Args section: fullname, number, input_id (with auto-resolution), parameters (with example), and action (with allowed values). This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema, making the tool callable correctly.

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 states 'Respond to a pipeline input step of a build that is paused for input in Jenkins' — a specific verb, resource, and context. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_pending_inputs (which only retrieves) and stop_build, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Explicitly directs usage: 'use get_pending_inputs to confirm its pending input' and 'get_running_builds to locate a paused build that is not the job's last one'. It also warns against retrying after timeout and advises re-checking. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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