sourcery_bulk_update_groups

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one genuinely useful trait — 'a group updates when at least one issue changes' — but says nothing about what updating a group actually mutates, whether it needs elevated permissions, or whether changes are reversible.

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 tight clauses with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a 5-parameter mutation tool.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage leave real gaps: the description does not explain the return behavior, the effect of each optional field, or permissions. It is too thin for a bulk mutation endpoint.

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 5 parameters, and the description only restates the max-100 ids cap already encoded in the schema. Nothing is said about reason, status, snoozed_until, or severity_override, which need the most explanation since they drive the update's effect.

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+resource ('Bulk-update groups') and ties the cap to the operation. The resource name distinguishes it from the sibling sourcery_bulk_update_findings, though the description never explicitly names or contrasts that alternative.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as sourcery_bulk_update_findings or the single-group update path. The reader is left to infer the operating context entirely.

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