transition_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the transition is irreversible, if it triggers notifications, how invalid transitions are handled (error or no-op), or if authorization is needed. The minimal phrase 'change the status' implies mutation but provides no safety or side-effect context.

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 single clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no fluff or repetition. However, it could be slightly expanded with a use-case hint without harming conciseness.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about valid status values (e.g., are they restricted to workflow transitions?), error handling, or idempotency. The lack of annotations amplifies this gap.

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%, with both parameters having clear descriptions ('Target status name' and 'Jira issue key') and examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 action ('Change the status') and the resource ('a Jira ticket') with the method ('by status name'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_ticket' by specifying the exact operation on status. However, it could be more explicit about being a state transition (e.g., 'transition a ticket to a new status using the workflow'), but it's still clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that 'update_ticket' might be more appropriate for other field changes, or that transitions depend on workflow rules. The agent is left to infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient.

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