Transition issue (change status)

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's main added value is disclosing the optional side effects: a comment is attached and a resolution is set as part of the transition. It does not disclose failure behavior for an invalid transition name or whether the response includes the updated issue.

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, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the parameter detail. Nothing is repeated from the schema unnecessarily.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a nested `fields` object and no output schema, the description covers the transition argument and optional side effects but leaves gaps: it never explains that `fields` is needed when the transition has a screen, and never points to jira_get_transitions for discovering valid values. Adequate but not complete.

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 83% (baseline 3), but the description uniquely documents the `transition` parameter, which has no schema description at all, by explaining it accepts a transition name, a target status name, or a transition id. That is exactly the ambiguity an agent would otherwise stumble on. It adds little for comment/resolution, which the schema already describes well.

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 concrete verb and resource: moving an issue through its workflow (status change). An agent can distinguish it from jira_update_issue or jira_add_comment. However, it never names jira_get_transitions, the closest sibling and the natural prerequisite, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'moves an issue through its workflow'. There is no explicit direction to call jira_get_transitions first to discover valid transition names, no when-not guidance (e.g. use jira_update_issue for field edits), and no note that transitions requiring a screen need the `fields` object.

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