jira_transition_issue

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

Discloses the safe-by-default dry_run behavior, which is critical for a mutation tool. However, without annotations, the description does not cover effects, idempotency, authorization needs, or error handling. Provides common transition_name values as a bonus.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, safety feature, examples. Front-loaded with the core action, no fluff. Every word 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?

Adequate for a simple transition tool with dry run safety. However, lacks details on optional parameters (confirm_token, reason) and return value. Without output schema, more completeness would help.

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 compensate. It adds value by listing common values for transition_name, but does not explain other params like issue_key, reason, or confirm_token. Partial compensation for one key 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?

Clearly states the tool transitions a Jira/ServiceNow ticket to a new workflow state. Uses specific verb 'transition' and identifies the resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_create_ticket and jira_add_comment.

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?

Implied usage for changing workflow states, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like jira_create_ticket for new tickets or jira_add_comment for comments. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool references.

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