jenkins_update_job_config

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

Annotations already mark the call destructive and readOnly=false; the description adds that Jenkins 'reserializes' the supplied config, warning that input is not stored verbatim. Mentioning 'write gates' gives authorization context beyond what annotations provide. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 carry the core action, a behavioral caveat, and a permission prerequisite. There is no filler, and the critical 'Replace job config.xml' statement is front-loaded.

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?

With destructiveHint and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to cover safety or return values. It still lacks parameter semantics and the batch/single-job ambiguity implied by the `job` array type, but the core replace behavior, permission gate, and reserialization caveat make it minimally complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to explain both `job` and `config_xml`; it only hints at `config_xml` via 'config.xml'. It says nothing about the `job` parameter, including its string-or-array ambiguity. This is inadequate compensation for the missing 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 opening phrase 'Replace job config.xml' names a specific mutation and target. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like jenkins_get_job_config, jenkins_create_job, and jenkins_delete_job. The reserialization note reinforces what 'update' means without ambiguity.

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 the use case—replacing an existing job's config—and adds a permission prerequisite ('Requires job-config write gates'). It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it relative to jenkins_create_job or jenkins_copy_job. This leaves routing decisions mostly to inference.

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