transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects or permissions. It only states the action without mentioning that it is a write operation, may fail on invalid transitions, or could have irreversible consequences.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it omits critical details, so it is brief without being fully informative.

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, output schema, or parameter guidance, this description is insufficient. It fails to mention the need to fetch valid transitions via get_transitions, what happens if the transition is invalid, or any required permissions.

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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters. While 'issueKey' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'transitionName' is ambiguous (could be a status name, transition ID, or something else) and is not elaborated.

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 'move' with a clear resource ('issue') and outcome ('different status'), which precisely defines the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_issue by focusing specifically on status transitions.

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 implies use for changing an issue's status but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus update_issue, nor does it mention prerequisites like calling get_transitions to fetch valid transition names. There is no exclusion or alternative mentioned.

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