lifecycle_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses transition-table guarding, loud rejection of illegal edges, revision stamping and freezing on release, registry write-back on success, optional provenance logging for actor/note, and the return shape {ok, state, rev} or {ok:false, problems}.

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?

Core purpose and state machine are front-loaded, followed by compact parameter and return-value notes. The internal reference '(#141 C2)' and phrasing like 'rejected loudly' are minor, and overall the text is tight and well-structured.

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?

Despite having no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description supplies behavior, parameter meaning, and return values. That is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though it does not spell out prerequisites like registry existence.

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% for five parameters, and the description documents each one: registry path and its write-back behavior, item id, target state, and optional actor/note as provenance in the transition log. It also supplies the valid lifecycle states as an implicit enum that the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('item through the lifecycle state machine'), and enumerates the full state sequence in_work -> in_review -> released -> obsolete. It does not name or exclude sibling tools such as lifecycle_editable, lifecycle_classify_change, or lifecycle_apply_change, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives mentioned, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the registry file must already exist). The state machine context implies the operation but does not guide tool selection against the other lifecycle_* siblings, matching the 'no guidance' anchor.

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