Transition Issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a mutating POST operation ('Moves') and highlights the need for valid transition IDs, but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or potential extra fields required by some transitions. This is a moderate level of transparency, missing some context that would be helpful for a write operation.

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, front-loaded with the core action, includes the endpoint, and finishes with a valuable prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential usage steps: move the issue and consult get_transitions for the ID. It lacks details on potential error conditions or required transition fields, but given the simplicity and the schema coverage, it is largely 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds limited new meaning. It reinforces the transitionId source by telling the agent to use get_transitions, which is helpful but not essential given the schema's 'see get_transitions' note. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Moves') and identifies a clear resource ('issue through its workflow'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_transitions by explicitly referencing it for discovering transition IDs, and includes the API endpoint for additional clarity.

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 instructs to use get_transitions first to discover valid transitionId values, providing a clear prerequisite and guiding the agent on when to use this tool relative to a sibling. This effectively tells the agent the sequence of operations and implies the alternative for obtaining transition IDs.

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