transition_ticket

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses alias resolution and the error-carries-valid-options contract, but says nothing about permissions, side effects like notifications, or whether the transition is reversible.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence contributes (core purpose, matching rules, error contract). No padding, though the alias parenthetical is slightly dense.

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 two-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers argument resolution and error recovery but omits preconditions and post-state effects. Adequate to invoke, incomplete for understanding 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 coverage is already 100%, but the description goes beyond it by defining that 'status' may be a transition name or a target status and that aliases (Closed/Resolved -> Done) are accepted. That matching semantics is not derivable from the schema's 'Target status name' text, so it adds real value.

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 specific verb and resource ('Change a Jira ticket's status'), which cleanly separates it from the generic update_ticket sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than spelled out.

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?

Explains how the status argument is matched (transition name or target status, with alias fallback) and that valid options surface in the error, which is genuinely useful retry guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over update_ticket for status changes, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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