jira_transition_issue

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, non-idempotent and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that transition-screen fields are not populated (a likely failure mode), that the observed status is returned when possible, and that blind retries after a timeout are unsafe for a non-idempotent operation. It does not explain what error surfaces when a required screen field blocks the transition, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

Six short clauses, each carrying a distinct operational fact, with the most decision-critical information (WRITE, exactly one of two parameters) front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter, destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, return hint, and retry hazard, which is close to sufficient. The gap is workflow guidance — nothing tells the agent to resolve transition IDs via jira_get_transitions first, or what happens when a transition screen requires fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it documents the exactly-one-of relationship between transitionId and transitionName and the case-insensitive, non-status name-matching semantics that the schema cannot express. issueKey is only covered by the schema's pattern, but its meaning is self-evident from the Jira context.

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?

"WRITE: execute one workflow transition" names a specific verb and resource, and the WRITE prefix immediately separates it from the read-side sibling jira_get_transitions. The added scope note "Does not fill transition-screen fields" tells an agent exactly what this call will not do, which is a distinctive boundary no sibling covers.

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?

It gives a concrete selection rule for the two mutually exclusive parameters ("Supply exactly one of transitionId or transitionName") and warns that names are transition names, not status names, with ambiguous names requiring an ID. What is missing is any pointer to the discovery step — an agent must infer on its own that jira_get_transitions is the way to obtain valid IDs before calling this.

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