feat(jsdoc): add more checks to valid-jsdoc rule

[cwillisf]

BREAKING CHANGE: Added stricter options from http://eslint.org/docs/rules/valid-jsdoc

[rschamp]

I'm ok with this — @thisandagain @tmickel?

[cwillisf]

To enumerate the actual changes here:

• When documenting function parameters, you must now use @param instead of @arg or @argument. Previously any of the three would be accepted.
• When documenting a class constructor, you must now use @constructor instead of @class. Previously either would be accepted.
• When documenting an abstract class, you must now use @abstract instead of @virtual. Previously either would be accepted.
• When documenting a function parameter, return value, etc. of type boolean, number, object, or string, you must use those names. The names of the corresponding wrapper types -- Boolean, Number, Object, and String -- are no longer allowed.
• The documentation for each parameter must include a description.
• If you document a return value for your function, your documentation must include the value's type and a description.

Things which have not changed:

• JSDoc comments are not required.
• A function which has a JSDoc comment and includes a return statement must document its return value. If the function has a JSDoc comment but doesn't include a return statement, then it's not required to document the return value.
• If a function documents a return value, it must use @return. The synonym @returns is not allowed.

[tmickel]

All sounds good to me!

[rschamp]

@cwillisf I meant to include require-jsdoc as a warning but it doesn't seem to be warning. Did you happen to look at why that is?

Found out why: eslint/eslint#5867. Maybe a (weak) argument to change the decision on function definition style?

[thisandagain]

Looks great to me. Thanks @cwillisf