Update multiple issues in one request with partial updates, so you only send the fields you want to change.
Update multiple issues. Update multiple issues in a single request. This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: updates are partial, so omitted fields are left unchanged. It does not state atomicity (all-or-nothing vs per-item failure) or any batch limits.
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 first two sentences say the same thing twice ('Update multiple issues' / 'Update multiple issues in a single request'), wasting space. The third sentence about partial updates is the only one that earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic but omits atomicity, per-item failure behavior, and batch-size constraints. Annotations handle safety, so the gaps are moderate rather than fatal.
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 schema carries per-field descriptions for the nested issue objects (id, status, assignee, versions, etc.), though the reported top-level coverage is 0%. The description's partial-update sentence adds real meaning by clarifying that every field except id is optional, which is the key semantic an agent needs before composing the body array.
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 ('Update multiple issues') and clarifies the batch nature ('in a single request'), which distinguishes it from the sibling put_issue. However it never names the single-issue sibling explicitly, so an agent must still infer the batch vs. single routing.
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 guidance on when to use batch update versus put_issue, no batch-size limits, no mention of what happens if one entry in the array is invalid. The partial-update note is a helpful mechanic but not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.