Transition Issue

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide (destructiveHint: true). It does not mention potential side effects like workflow constraints, required fields, or that the status change is irreversible. With only a one-sentence description and no additional context, the agent is left unaware of important behavioral traits beyond the fact that the operation is destructive.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose, so it doesn't reach a perfect 5 but remains 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 the rich input schema and output schema, the tool has nuanced behavior: transitions can require fields, comments have special rules for internal-only projects, and prerequisites like fetching available transitions. The description provides none of this context, leaving the agent to rely entirely on schema descriptions. Given the complexity, a more complete description is needed to adequately prepare the agent.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The input schema provides rich descriptions for all parameters, including examples for fields, comments, and transition_id usage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema compensates fully, so this dimension meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Transition a Jira issue to a new status.' It uses a specific verb ('transition') and resource ('Jira issue'), which distinguishes it from generic update tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like jira_update_issue or jira_move_issue, relying on the domain-specific term 'transition' to carry that weight.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does mention nothing about needing to call jira_get_transitions to obtain valid transition IDs. While the input schema for transition_id includes this instruction, the description itself offers no usage context, leaving the agent without explicit decision support.

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