Transition a guest to a new lifecycle stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the HTTP method (PATCH), the allowed transition paths, and the behavior that invalid transitions are rejected by the API. It does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility, but the detailed transition rules provide substantial context beyond a generic 'update' statement.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence packs the transition rules into a compact, readable list. There is no fluff; every element adds necessary information about how the tool works.

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 description fully covers the tool's state-machine logic and API endpoint, which is the core complexity. However, it does not mention the response format or any side effects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. Given the absence of annotations, a little more detail on expected return value would make it complete, but it remains adequate for invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by defining the allowed transition paths, which clarifies constraints on the 'stage' parameter beyond the simple enum listing. It doesn't add extra detail for 'id' or 'reason', but the schema already covers those adequately.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Transition'), a resource ('a guest'), and a scope ('to a new lifecycle stage'). It also lists valid transition paths, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_guests and add_guest. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 provides the valid forward and backward transition paths, which serve as implicit guidance on when this tool is appropriate (i.e., whenever a guest's stage needs to change). It also notes that invalid transitions are rejected by the API, telling the agent it need not pre-validate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or edge cases where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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