update_task_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a state-changing operation but does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or workflow-validity constraints, which are important for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It communicates the action, resource, and method in a compact form that an agent can 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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical context: transition validity depends on the issue's current workflow status, and the tool's behavior on invalid transitions is undisclosed. An agent could correctly invoke it for a simple case but would be unprepared for failure modes.

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% with meaningful descriptions for both parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Transition'), a clear resource ('a Jira issue'), and a precise target ('a new status'), and it names the underlying API ('Jira transitions API'). This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like update_task, which implies field-level updates rather than workflow status changes.

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 clearly implies the tool is for changing an issue's workflow status, which is a reasonable usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as update_task for editing fields, nor does it mention when a transition might be invalid (e.g., not allowed for the current status).

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