bulk_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the operation without explaining key semantics like atomicity, partial success handling, permission requirements, or whether the specified values are applied uniformly to all issues. 'At once' is ambiguous and could mislead about transactional guarantees.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary structure, making it maximally concise while conveying the core 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's complexity (bulk operation, nested values object, output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the semantics of bulk updates (e.g., whether all issues get the same values, what happens on partial failure), and while the output schema covers return values, the description omits essential behavioral context that an agent needs to use the tool 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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, including the meaning of 'issues' and 'values' with examples. The description adds no parameter details, but per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 performs a bulk update on multiple issues in a single action, using the specific verb 'bulk update' and the resource 'issues.' This distinguishes it from single-issue tools like 'update_issue' and entity-focused bulk tools like 'bulk_update_entities.'

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the recommended choice for updating multiple issues at once, nor does it exclude loops over 'update_issue' or clarify trade-offs.

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