bump_build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond that — the bump-rights permission requirement and the queued precondition — but omits what happens to displaced builds and the failure behavior when the build is not queued.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and the key constraint front-loaded; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a non-idempotent mutation with an under-documented required parameter, the description lacks failure modes, displaced-build behavior, and instance-defaulting guidance that the agent would need.

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 coverage is only 50%: 'instance' is documented in the schema but 'build_id' carries only a title and minimum of 1. The description says nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Move a queued build to the front of the queue.' An agent can distinguish it from cancel_build/restart_build/get_queue by the queued-only, front-of-queue semantics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(needs bump rights)' gives a prerequisite, and 'queued' implies the applicable state. But it never says what to do for non-queued builds or points to restart_build as the alternative for already-running/complete builds.

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