bulk_update_acceptance_criteria

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's mention of 'no changes made on error' and 'returns errors' adds atomicity context. However, it does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means specifically (e.g., irreversible changes to checked state). The description complements annotations but could be more explicit.

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 consists of three concise sentences: purpose, behavioral rule (partial update), matching/error behavior, and return structure. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description enumerates return fields (story_id, path, content, criteria_updated, errors), which is helpful. It covers partial update semantics, error handling, and atomicity. Minor gap: path and content are not defined, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces exact text matching for criteria but does not add new parameter-level details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema carries the burden.

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 the verb (update), resource (acceptance criteria on a story), and scope (individual checked states in one operation). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like check_acceptance_criterion and set_acceptance_criteria by emphasizing batch update of specific criteria.

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 explains partial update behavior and error conditions (all-or-nothing on exact match). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly reference alternatives (e.g., check_acceptance_criterion for single updates). The guidance is contextual but lacks exclusionary advice.

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