transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It describes a state change (mutation) but does not mention if it is reversible, requires specific permissions, or the impact on linked issues. For a state-changing tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—without unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing concision, e.g., mentioning that the transition must be valid for the current status.

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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it explains the action and relies on the schema for parameter details. Additional context on success responses, error cases (e.g., invalid transition), or workflow constraints would improve completeness.

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%, meaning the schema already documents both parameters well (issueKey and transitionId). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 changes the status of a JIRA issue, using a specific verb (変更します) and resource (課題のステータス). It is distinct from siblings like create_issue or update_issue, though it could explicitly mention the concept of 'transitioning' an issue through a workflow.

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 is minimal and provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools (get_transitions, assign_issue) and schema hint (transitionId via get_transitions) help infer proper usage. A brief note on prerequisites or when not to use (e.g., when status change is not allowed) would improve clarity.

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