Preview or apply work package updates

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

Goes well beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). Discloses non-atomic sequential execution, all-or-nothing preflight, partial_failure semantics, unknown-outcome recovery (re-read before retry), no auto-retry/rollback, and shared notify flag. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core two-phase workflow, then sentinel semantics, then failure semantics. Dense but every sentence carries operational weight. Slightly long, but justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complex, non-idempotent batch mutation with an output schema, the description covers workflow sequencing, validation, partial failure, recovery, and field sentinel rules. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description clarifies the key sentinel semantics: omitted=untouched, null=clears clearable fields, target_versions=[] clears, status/type/priority accept names or ids, lock_version from preview. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though some edge cases (custom_fields clearing, date formats) remain undocumented.

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 (bulk update work packages) with clear scope (up to 50, each with its own changes) and distinguishes the preview-then-apply two-phase workflow from sibling update_work_package by explicitly referencing it. An agent can immediately tell this is the batch counterpart.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: first call with dry_run=true (default), review diffs, then resubmit with dry_run=false and lock_version. Also gives exclusion guidance (don't combine version with target_versions, submit a valid subset if preflight fails, never rerun successful items). This is exceptionally prescriptive.

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