jenkins_cancel_queue_item

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

Annotations already signal destructive, non-read-only, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds the non-obvious operational requirement that JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1 must be set for the write to be allowed, which is useful context beyond the annotations. There is no contradiction; the description aligns with the destructiveHint.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the critical prerequisite is in the second. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is largely complete. It includes the important write-enable requirement. A minor gap is that it does not point to sibling tools like jenkins_list_queue or jenkins_get_queue_item for discovering item IDs, but the low complexity keeps this from being a critical omission.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for item_id, and the description does not explain what item_id represents beyond the general phrase 'queue item.' An agent can infer it is the queue item identifier, but the description provides no guidance on where to obtain it or whether it is the numeric queue ID returned by jenkins_list_queue or jenkins_get_queue_item. This is insufficient to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Cancel') and a specific resource ('Jenkins queue item'), making the action and target unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like jenkins_get_queue_item and mutation tools for builds or jobs, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself beyond the verb and resource.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives. The only guideline provided is the prerequisite JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1, which is an operational condition rather than context about selecting this tool versus siblings.

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