transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral rules (transition_id takes priority over transition_name; resolution is for closing transitions), but says nothing about what happens on an invalid/illegal transition, permission requirements, or whether the change is reversible.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a tight per-argument list; every line earns its place, especially given the 0% schema description coverage that makes the arg list necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The gaps are procedural: no mention of needing valid transitions for the issue's current status, no error-behavior note, and no reference to get_transitions for discovery.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all five parameters including examples ('KAN-123', 'In Progress', 'Done') and the priority rule for transition_id. It does not supply the actual allowed values/enums for transition_name or resolution, which remain undiscoverable from 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Transition an issue to a new status'), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like update_issue or bulk_transition, so the agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It never says to call get_transitions first to discover valid names/IDs, nor when to prefer this over update_issue or bulk_transition. The only routing hint is the implicit 'transition_name auto-finds ID'.

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