ctverify: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. It does disclose the mutating behavior (updating status and optionally note) and the precondition for inputs, which is helpful. However, it does not address what happens when both `ids` and `filter_status` are supplied, whether the operation is atomic, or what response/result the caller should expect.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the selection constraint is stated clearly in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 bulk mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and the input constraint. However, it omits expected return behavior, effect on the registry file, and how combinations of `ids` and `filter_status` are interpreted, leaving some ambiguity for an agent invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds useful context about the relationship between `ids` and `filter_status` and the requirement that one be provided, but it does not add deeper semantics beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('update status and optionally note'), the target ('multiple citations'), and the bulk nature ('at once'). It distinguishes this tool from the single-item sibling ctverify:update by emphasizing batch operation.

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 explicit selection criteria: entries can be chosen by a list of IDs or by filtering on current status. It also states the important precondition that at least one of `ids` or `filter_status` must be provided, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the single-update sibling, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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