issue_transition

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a mutating operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether invalid statuses or disallowed transitions cause an error, or what side effects (comments, notifications) occur. Only the bare mutation is implied.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise; there is no structure beyond the one clause to guide the agent.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and a close sibling in issue_update, the description leaves too much unsaid: no failure modes, no permission model, no distinction from siblings. It is only minimally adequate given the tool's complexity.

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% and each of the three parameters (to, key, site) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond that — notably it does not clarify whether "to" accepts a status name, a transition name, or an ID.

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 pairs a verb ("Move") with a resource ("an issue") and states the target concept (a status), so the basic intent is legible. But it never distinguishes this from sibling tools like issue_update or issue_create, and "move" is ambiguous for what is really a workflow status transition, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which sibling to pick.

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 given on when to use this instead of issue_update, nor on prerequisites such as whether the target status must be reachable via an allowed workflow transition. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the sibling list.

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