bulk_update_epics

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

Annotations indicate destructiveness, and the description adds valuable context: atomicity per file, error handling on missing epics, and structure of return results. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Description is concise with three sentences, front-loads purpose, and covers key behaviors. Efficient but could be slightly more streamlined.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return format. Annotations cover safety. Missing details on prerequisites or rate limits, but overall sufficient for a bulk update tool.

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 coverage is 100% and already explains parameter details (required fields, status enum, note behavior). The description merely echoes 'Each entry may set status and/or append a note', adding negligible new meaning.

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 tool updates multiple epics in one operation, specifies actions (set status, append note), and addresses error handling. It distinguishes from single-epic tools like set_epic_status and create_epic.

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 use case for bulk updates but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over single-update siblings (e.g., set_epic_status). Lacks when-not-to-use guidance.

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