scf_transition_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that this is a write operation and highlights admin permission requirements, and it discloses that invalid target statuses are rejected by the platform. However, it leaves out other relevant behavior such as return values, error handling, reversibility, and whether the transition is logged — gaps that matter for a mutating 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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by essential constraints (admin permission, valid-target enforcement), making it easy to scan and digest.

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 4-parameter, 3-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and key constraints but omits what happens on success or failure and leaves the optional reason parameter unaddressed. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully self-sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds mild context for the to_status parameter by illustrating the allowed progression and admin restrictions, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on org_id, document_id, or reason beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Move a document through its lifecycle') and enumerates the exact status chain (draft → review → approved → published), making the operation unambiguous. It is clear enough to distinguish from document content tools like scf_update_document_section, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool — transitioning a document between lifecycle states — and provides a concrete when-not by stating that approving and publishing require admin rights. It also warns that valid targets are platform-enforced, implying the agent should check the current status before calling. It does not mention alternative tools, but no sibling performs this exact lifecycle transition.

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