transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description conveys that this is a state-changing operation but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the optional comment is attached, whether the transition is reversible), error behavior for invalid transition IDs, or any permissions needed. Only the hint about fetching the transition ID from get_transitions adds slight behavioral context.

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 zero waste. The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the prerequisite workflow fills the second. Every word earns its place, and the structure guides the agent from action to necessary precursor.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters (2 required), the description is adequate but thin. It correctly names the prerequisite get_transitions call, but omits the response/return value on success and any error behavior. Given the tool's workflow complexity and lack of structured annotation coverage, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including that transitionId comes from get_transitions. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema — it merely reinforces the transitionId sourcing. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transition') with a clear resource ('a Jira issue') and states the outcome ('to a new status'). This differentiates it from the sibling update_issue, which changes fields rather than status. It is not a tautology of the tool name, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: 'Use get_transitions first to find the right transition ID.' This tells the agent the correct order of operations and implies that the transitionId parameter must come from that call. However, it does not state when NOT to use this tool relative to alternatives like update_issue or assign_issue.

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