Jira Transition Issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses a mutation (moving issue through workflow) and a meaningful constraint (comments not accepted), but does not mention likely side effects, such as whether a transition can require extra fields, is irreversible, or changes the issue in ways beyond status. For a state-changing action with zero annotations, this is thin.

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 short sentences front-load the core action and immediately point to the sibling tool for valid transition values; the comment limitation is stated in one clause with no wasted words.

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 tells an agent where to obtain transition IDs and how to handle comments, which covers the main usage pitfalls. It doesn't mention possible required transition fields or permissions, but the tool is simple and has an output schema.

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?

The description doesn't define 'key' or 'transition_id' but links transition_id to jira_get_transitions opportunely. Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds little beyond the names, though the sibling reference compensates somewhat for the transition_id parameter.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Move an issue through a workflow transition'. It also references the sibling tool jira_get_transitions, differentiating this operation from related issue actions like jira_update_issue. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and why it exists.

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?

Explicitly instructs to consult jira_get_transitions for valid transitions and jira_add_comment for comments, stating that comments are deliberately not accepted here. This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool versus its sibling alternatives.

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