bulk_change_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('change the status') and mentions an optional note, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., triggering workflow automations), partial failure behavior, or permission requirements. Minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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 one short sentence, front-loaded with the primary action. It is concise and every word earns its place, with the optional 'workflow transitions' phrase adding a slight use-case flavor without unnecessary clutter.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough to select and invoke correctly. However, it omits details like whether the operation is atomic, what happens if some taskIds are invalid, or if there are any side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, with all three parameters (taskIds, statusId, note) already described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that note is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: changing the status of multiple tasks at once, with an optional note. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bulk_update_tasks by focusing specifically on status changes, and the phrase 'workflow transitions' adds context. This is a specific verb+resource+scope.

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 phrase 'Perfect for workflow transitions' implies a use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like bulk_update_tasks or update_task. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than clearly defined.

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