jira_issues_transition

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: automatic resolution of transition ID from target status name and the return format. Annotations indicate a write operation, which the description confirms. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral detail and return format. No wasted words; efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Covers the main aspects: purpose, prerequisite, automatic behavior, return format. Missing details on error handling or permissions but acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature and presence of output schema.

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 100%, so the description has limited additional per-parameter information. The description mentions case-insensitivity and optional comment/resolution, but these are already in the schema. The overall behavioral context adds value but doesn't significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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 action ('Transition a Jira issue'), the resource ('Jira issue'), and the result ('new status'). It also highlights automatic resolution of the transition ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_bulk_transition_issues and jira_issues_get_transitions.

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?

Explicitly advises using jira_issues_get_transitions first to see available transitions, providing clear prerequisite context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for bulk transitions), the sibling names imply the distinction.

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