jira_transition_issue

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. 'Smart field handling' implies automated field management but gives no details on behavior (e.g., validation, error handling, required permissions). Lacks disclosure of any destructive or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys core purpose and key feature.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context: the need to retrieve available transitions, that field values may be required, and how 'smart handling' affects required fields. Does not mention the prerequisite jira_get_issue_transitions tool.

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%: all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds 'smart field handling' hinting at fieldValues behavior, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high coverage.

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'), the resource ('Jira issue'), and adds distinctive context ('smart field handling'). It differentiates from sibling tools like jira_transition_issue_interactive and other issue operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_transition_issue_interactive). No mention of prerequisites, such as fetching available transitions first via jira_get_issue_transitions.

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