do_transition

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. 'Transition issue' implies a state-changing workflow operation but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, validation errors, or the fact that the body must specify a valid transition.

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?

Two words is concise but crosses into under-specification. There is no fluff, but the description is too short to serve as a useful guide for a tool with a nested request body and several sibling variants.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a nested body schema, the description is far too incomplete. An agent cannot tell what transition values are acceptable or what the result of a successful transition will look like.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents issueIdOrKey and gives the body shape. The description adds no semantic detail about what should go in 'transition' or 'fields', but it does not need to compensate much because the schema is present.

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 phrase 'Transition issue' states a clear verb and resource: the tool changes an issue's workflow status. However, it is too vague to distinguish do_transition from nearby siblings such as submit_bulk_transition or get_transitions, and it does not explain what a transition involves.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that it applies to a single-issue workflow transition, and it is not told to call get_transitions first or to use submit_bulk_transition for multiple issues.

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