Execute Issue Transition

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

The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by stating that invalid transition IDs will be rejected and that the tool returns a list of new transitions for the new status. This helps the agent understand expected behavior and error cases, though it does not detail every side effect.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose first, followed by critical usage guidance and return value information. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 presence of an output schema and full parameter descriptions, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior, prerequisite, and return value. It could include example usage or edge cases, but it is complete enough for a well-specified 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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description reiterates the constraint on transition_id but does not add significant new semantic information 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 tool's function: executing a status transition for a Yandex Tracker issue. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('status transition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like issue_get_transitions or issue_update.

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 explicitly instructs users to call issue_get_transitions first and only use transition IDs returned by that tool. It also warns against arbitrary transition IDs, providing clear usage prerequisites and avoiding common pitfalls.

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