jenkins_trigger_build

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint — 'Requires JENKINS_MCP_ENABLE_WRITES=1' — which captures a write-gating configuration an agent must check before invoking. No contradiction with annotations; it aligns with the non-read-only, destructive hints.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The core action and scoping qualifier are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the operational prerequisite is a tight second sentence. 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?

The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, and annotations cover the mutation/destructive profile. However, for a destructive action the description is thin: it doesn't explain the `delay` parameter, the array form of `job`, or what happens post-trigger (e.g., build is queued vs. started). These are real gaps, but the schema and annotations mitigate the worst of it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it doesn't. 'Non-parameterized' refers to the Jenkins job, not the tool's parameters. The description says nothing about what `delay` means (format, unit, null semantics) or why `job` accepts both a string and an array (does an array trigger multiple jobs?). Both parameters remain effectively undocumented.

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 ('Trigger'), a specific resource ('job build'), and a crucial scoping qualifier ('non-parameterized'). The qualifier cleanly distinguishes this from its sibling jenkins_trigger_build_with_parameters, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 'non-parameterized' qualifier gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the env-var prerequisite is explicit operational guidance. However, it never names the alternative tool for parameterized jobs (jenkins_trigger_build_with_parameters), so the routing is implied rather than explicit — clear context, but no stated exclusions.

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