transition_set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes that 'value' is auto-converted to numeric if applicable. It does not mention error handling, side effects, reversibility, or any constraints on the transition. Given the mutation nature, this lack of disclosure is a significant gap.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear argument list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and is appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool. However, it is mostly a plain sentence rather than a structured format, so it doesn't earn a perfect 5.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no annotations and only a minimal description, the context is incomplete. An agent has no idea what happens if the transition does not exist, whether parameters are name-sensitive, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). The description fails to provide enough context for confident correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning. It only provides trivial restatements: 'Transition identifier,' 'Parameter name,' and 'New value.' The only added detail is the auto-conversion note for value, but it does not clarify valid param_name values or the expected format of transition_id. This is insufficient for a tool with three undocumented 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 action ('Modify a parameter') and the resource ('an existing transition'), which distinguishes it from creating or removing transitions. It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar parameter-setting tools like filter_set_param, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage via the phrase 'on an existing transition,' but there is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or sibling tools with related functionality. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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