transition_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'change status' but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications, workflow rules), permission requirements, or what happens on invalid transition IDs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no space.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but omits crucial context such as the need to call get_transitions for valid transition IDs and any workflow implications. It is not complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 both issueKey and transitionId. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the 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 uses a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('status of a Jira issue'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is distinct from generic update tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or emphasize the workflow transition aspect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or bulk_transition_issues. It also fails to mention that transition IDs should be obtained from get_transitions, which is a critical prerequisite.

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