workflow_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention automatic guard checking, forced transitions being logged as forced, and attaching evidence. This gives some transparency about side effects. However, it does not describe the success/failure behavior, whether the transition is idempotent, what happens to existing state, or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool, this is partial 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?

The description is a concise docstring with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted argument list. It front-loads the core purpose and then details parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value—no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and no annotations, so the description must cover behavioral context. It explains guards, force, and evidence, but lacks details on return values, state machine semantics, or how it integrates with the overall workflow. With many siblings, it would benefit from clarifying its role in the lifecycle. The description is functional but not fully comprehensive for an agent to know all consequences.

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. It explains each parameter: target with examples, evidence as keys to attach, force as bypassing guards, reason as human-readable, and project_dir with default. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles. It does not specify the exact format of evidence keys or reason string constraints, but it covers the essential semantics for all five parameters.

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 purpose: 'Attempt a state transition.' It specifies the verb (attempt) and the resource (state transition), and provides concrete examples for the target parameter. This distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_status (read-only) and workflow_next (which likely moves to a predefined next step). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 17 sibling tools covering various workflow operations, the description does not mention when to prefer workflow_transition over workflow_next, workflow_item_transition, or workflow_waive_guard. The usage context is implied (state transitions) but not clearly scoped, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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