jira_transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It mentions raising ValueError for read-only mode or missing inputs, and that some transitions require specific fields. However, it does not disclose potential irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects like status changes. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: one-line purpose, then Args/Returns/Raises sections. Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with clear purpose. No wasted words.

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?

With 4 parameters (2 required), 100% schema coverage, and output schema present (though not shown), the description covers return format and errors. It is fairly complete, though could benefit from mentioning that transitions are typically irreversible and require appropriate permissions.

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 100% and description adds useful context beyond the schema: provides examples for fields (e.g., {'resolution': {'name': 'Fixed'}}), explains transition_id usage (pointing to jira_get_transitions), and clarifies optionality of fields and comment. Adds meaningful guidance.

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 transitions a Jira issue to a new status, using specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_update_issue (which updates fields) and jira_get_transitions (which lists available transitions).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a prerequisite by mentioning using jira_get_transitions first, but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Siblings include many similar Jira tools, but no comparative context is provided.

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