Lifecycle Transition

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description reveals key side effects: the registry is written back on success, releasing stamps the first revision and freezes the item, and illegal transitions fail loudly. It also discloses the return contract, including the error shape, which is substantial behavioral detail.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then parameter semantics, then return behavior. It is slightly dense and includes an internal reference (#141 C2) that adds no agent value, but nearly every sentence 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?

For a mutating lifecycle tool with no output schema and no parameter enums, the description is complete: it explains legal transitions, illegal edge cases, side effects, parameter meanings, and return shapes. An agent has enough to call this correctly without needing external context.

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%, yet the description documents every parameter: registry is the items.json sidecar path, item is the item id, to is the target lifecycle state, and actor/note are optional provenance written to the transition log. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Move an item through the lifecycle state machine' and names the exact legal flow in_work -> in_review -> released -> obsolete. It also gives concrete examples of illegal transitions, which makes the tool's domain unmistakable and separates it from vague sibling names like lifecycle_apply_change.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever an item needs to advance through the lifecycle state machine. It also implies constraints by saying illegal edges are rejected, but it does not explicitly contrast with lifecycle_editable, lifecycle_classify_change, or lifecycle_apply_change, so exclusions are left mostly to inference.

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