Execute Issue Transition

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds that invalid transition IDs are rejected and that the tool returns the transitions available in the new status, giving the agent useful post-invocation expectations.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences communicate the action, prerequisite, constraint, and return behavior without extraneous detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core prerequisite, the API constraint, and the result of a successful call. Since an output schema exists, detailed return-value documentation is unnecessary. A small gap is not distinguishing this tool from sibling issue_close, but the core invocation context is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaningful value by emphasizing that transition_id must come from issue_get_transitions and by explaining the consequence of using an invalid ID, which is not fully captured in the schema.

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 executes a status transition for a Yandex Tracker issue, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling issue_get_transitions by describing an action that changes state.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call issue_get_transitions first and pass one of the returned IDs, warning that the API rejects anything else. It does not mention alternatives like issue_close or when to prefer this tool over other transition-related tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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