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 behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool changes workflow status, but it does not mention permissions, side effects such as notifications or post-functions, reversibility, or what happens on invalid transition attempts. The list_transitions tip is useful but not sufficient disclosure for a mutating 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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is immediately stated. 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a documented prerequisite, the description is reasonably complete for invoking it correctly. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does not convey the op's side effects or expected return behavior, leaving some context gaps.

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 both issueKey and transitionId are already documented. The description reinforces that transitionId must come from list_transitions, which adds operational context, but it does not need to add much because the schema already covers the parameter meanings.

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 states a specific verb and object: transition a Jira issue to a new status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_issue, add_comment, and assign_issue. It also points toward list_transitions, reinforcing the tool's distinct role in the Jira workflow.

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 the agent to use list_transitions first to obtain valid transition IDs, which establishes a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not explicitly name cases where update_issue should be used instead, but the core usage guidance is present.

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