transition_design_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details legal state changes, lists terminal statuses, and specifies return format on success and failure, giving agents a clear model of the tool's effect. It does not cover permissions, but the essential behavior is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured with a single-sentence action statement, a bulleted transition table, and a return description. No redundant sentences.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the state machine, return values, and error case. It lacks permission details but that's not essential for this operation based on sibling norms.

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 coverage is 0% and the description doesn't explicitly define each parameter, but it embeds the allowed status values within the transition arrows (e.g., in_review, revision_requested), so the status parameter's domain is inferable. design_id is self-explanatory. However, it could more explicitly enumerate the allowed status values for the status 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?

The description opens with 'Transition a design to the given target status,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling CRUD tools by listing explicit state transitions, making its unique role among create/update tools apparent.

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 valid transition list provides explicit when-to-use information based on current status, including terminal states that indicate when the tool cannot be used. It doesn't name alternative tools but the transition rules serve as clear usage constraints.

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