build_item

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden and does not. It never says whether the call returns immediately with a queue item, whether it blocks until completion, what permissions are needed, or what happens when build_type is 'buildWithParameters' but params are omitted. For a mutation with real consequences, this is a significant gap.

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 single sentence is trivially concise with no filler, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline. There is no structure directing the agent to parameters or return behavior.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with a nested object, an enum, and no output schema, the definition is far too sparse. The agent cannot tell what the call returns, whether the build is queued asynchronously, or how to populate params correctly.

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% across three parameters, including a nested free-form params object and an enum build_type. The description adds no meaning: it does not explain that fullname is the job's full path, that build_type selects whether params apply, or what value types params accepts. Every parameter must be guessed from its name alone.

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 pairs the verb "build" with the resource "item" and notes the Jenkins context, so the general intent (trigger a build of a Jenkins job) is inferable. However, "item" is Jenkins jargon that could mean a job, folder, or pipeline, and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like replay_build, get_build, or stop_build. It is a thin restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no routing to alternatives. The agent is not told when to prefer build_item over replay_build or how this relates to the queue-item tools, despite those being adjacent operations.

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