bulk_update_tasks

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds value by warning to double-check task_ids and disclosing that partial failures are possible. It also clarifies that the same update is applied to all tasks, which is a behavioral nuance beyond the annotation.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the critical warning. The Args section is structured and readable. Minor redundancy exists ('Verify' and 'Double-check' repeat the same point), but overall every sentence serves a purpose.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and is a bulk mutation, the description covers key aspects: purpose, partial failures, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit guidance on error handling for invalid IDs, but the partial failure note covers the main risk. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It provides clear, meaningful explanations for all five parameters: task_ids (custom or UUID), status, assignee_add (user ID), team (Component/Team label), and points. Each param is explained in context of the bulk operation, which is more helpful than a generic 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple tasks'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'update_task' which handles single tasks. It also notes it's a 'convenience tool' applying the same update to multiple tasks, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it ('multiple tasks at once') and warns to verify task IDs before calling, indicating a pre-check. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the context of bulk vs. single update is clear. It also mentions partial failures, which helps set expectations.

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