superpos_transition_issue

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It mentions rejection of invalid transitions but lacks details on side effects, atomicity, or whether the operation is destructive. Could be improved with post-condition or error handling behavior.

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 with no filler, front-loaded with purpose. Every word earns its place. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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?

Has output schema, so return values are covered. However, lacks context on when to provide 'reason' or 'hive_id', and the precondition about checking transitions is the only usage context. Adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, yet description only explains 'to' implicitly through the state list. Parameters 'reason' and 'hive_id' are not mentioned, leaving their purpose unclear. Minimal value added beyond schema for most parameters.

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 verb 'Move' and resource 'issue' with explicit list of target states (open, in_progress, blocked, awaiting_review, done, cancelled). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'superpos_transition_track' which handles tracks, not issues.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Check allowed_transitions on the issue first' and warns that 'invalid transitions are rejected', providing clear when-to-use guidance and precondition.

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