部署分支到 Job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses substantive behavior: concurrent builds are hard-blocked, the same deployment branch can be redeployed directly, and switching branches has an anti-overwrite safeguard based on the most recent successful deployment SHA. This goes well beyond a generic 'deploys a branch' statement, though it does not cover permissions or failure results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the key behavioral constraints. There is no redundant or filler content; every clause adds value.

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 3-parameter deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description plus schema covers the core action, essential constraints (concurrency, redeploy, anti-overwrite), and the conditional use of the force parameter. It does not describe return values, but the sibling get_status tool can supplement that gap.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description: job requires the exact Jenkins job name, branch is the target branch, and force requires explicit user consent to overwrite. The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: '修改 BranchSpec 并触发构建' (modify BranchSpec and trigger a build), and the title '部署分支到 Job' identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools find_job and get_status, which are lookup and status operations respectively.

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 through the title and action, and provides behavioral conditions like concurrent-build hard-blocking and redeployment rules. However, it does not explicitly state when to use deploy versus find_job/get_status, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema hint to locate the job with find_job.

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