state_machine_sm_trigger

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

The description discloses that it attempts a transition and returns success/error, but does not explicitly state that it mutates the state machine or requires a valid current state. Without annotations, the burden is on the description; it covers basic behavior but lacks details about side effects.

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 sentence plus return format, concise and front-loaded with the '[state_machine]' tag. No redundant information.

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 and the presence of an output schema (implied by return format description), the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the transition is actually performed (not just attempted) and that 'to_state' must be a valid next state, but overall it informs the agent sufficiently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only mentions 'to_state' in context ('transition to to_state'), but does not define 'name' (likely the state machine identifier) or elaborate on 'to_state'. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Attempt to transition to to_state,' and specifies the return format. It differentiates from sibling state machine tools (e.g., sm_add_transition, sm_can, sm_state) by focusing on triggering a transition.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided. The description implies usage for triggering state transitions, but does not mention when to prefer this over sm_can (checking transition validity) or other tools.

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