jira_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 discloses only the action and the prerequisite for obtaining transition IDs, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, return values, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, each adding value: the first states the action, the second provides a critical next step. No filler.

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?

The tool is simple, but without annotations or an output schema, the description should clarify expected return/result and any side effects. It provides the core workflow but leaves these aspects to inference.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds the workflow hint about obtaining transition IDs via jira_fetch_issue, which reinforces the schema but doesn't provide substantially new meaning beyond it.

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 the specific verb 'Transition' with the resource 'Jira issue' and the target 'new status'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_assign_issue by focusing on 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?

It explicitly instructs to call jira_fetch_issue first to obtain transition IDs, which is a clear prerequisite and workflow hint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the context makes the usage obvious.

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