superpos_transition_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not describe side effects, permissions required, or whether transitions are reversible. The output schema exists but its content is unknown, so the description 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It effectively communicates the core action without unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context on what the tool returns, error handling, or transition constraints. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is inadequate for an agent to confidently use it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly explains the 'to' parameter by listing states, but does not explain 'slug', 'reason', or 'hive_id'. This leaves ambiguity about parameter purpose and expected values.

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 moves a track to a new state and explicitly lists the allowed states: planning, active, paused, done, or archived. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like superpos_transition_issue.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like update_track or create_track. It lacks information on prerequisites, valid transitions, or conditions for use.

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