transition_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the core mutation (status change) and the optional comment attachment, including an example. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, which would be useful for a mutation tool. The disclosed behaviors are accurate but minimal.

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 long and front-loaded: first the primary action, then the prerequisite, then optional behavior with an example. Every clause contributes meaningful guidance with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (three flat parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential workflow: decide the transition, get the ID from list_transitions, and optionally add a comment. It lacks return value details, but that is acceptable given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation.

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?

User-provided schema descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explicitly linking transition_id to list_transitions output and providing a sample comment rationale, which goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 specifies the verb 'Move' and the resource 'Jira issue to a new status', and identifies the mechanism 'using a transition ID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_issue by focusing on status transitions and pointing to list_transitions for ID discovery.

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 explicitly states 'Use list_transitions first to discover available transition IDs', providing a clear prerequisite and coordinating with a sibling tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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