bulk_update_issues

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool does not abort on the first error, tries every issue, reports individual results, and uses specific 'leave alone' sentinels for all fields, which is substantial behavioral context.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured and every part adds value: plain-language summary, use cases, error behavior, sentinel disclosure, and parameter documentation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a clean Args list.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, use cases, behavioral nuances, error handling, sentinel conventions, and parameter semantics, leaving no significant gap for an agent to invoke it 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?

The description includes a full Args section explaining every parameter, including sentinel values (0, -1, empty string) and formats like YYYY-MM-DD and custom_fields map structure. Since the schema has no property descriptions, this fully compensates and adds clear meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Apply the same change to several issues at once,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and batch scope. It also distinguishes itself from creation and implies comparison to update_issue by referencing its sentinel conventions.

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 gives concrete scenarios (moving cards to a new status, fixing categories, assigning versions) and explicitly explains when batching is not useful (creation). It also indirectly points to update_issue as the single-issue alternative.

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