workflow_item_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the state-machine rules and that any item can be cancelled, which is useful. But it does not state what happens on an invalid transition (error vs silent no-op), whether changes are persisted immediately, or whether the mutation is reversible — meaningful gaps for a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: the core action comes first, followed by the necessary transition map, then a compact Args block. The transition list is verbose but earns its place. No wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The transition map fully covers reachable states, but for a mutating tool with no annotations, the absence of invalid-transition behavior and post-transition consequences leaves the definition slightly incomplete for confident invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it adds the WI-NNN format for item_id and the default for project_dir. However, it does not enumerate valid values for target (only implied by the transition map) and gives no elaboration on reason. The added value is real but thin.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Transition a work item to a new state') and enumerates the exact valid transition map, which is highly specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling workflow_transition, but the 'work item' qualifier and state list imply scope. Minor deduction for not naming the sibling it differs from.

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 valid-transitions list provides implicit applicability guidance — an agent learns which target states are reachable from the current state. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over workflow_transition or workflow_item_waive, and no exclusions for cases where the tool should not be used.

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