transition_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a status change (implying a mutation), but doesn't address critical aspects like required permissions, whether the transition is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., triggering workflows), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation in Jira with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the transition (e.g., success/failure responses, returned data), nor does it cover behavioral nuances like authentication needs or rate limits. For a tool that changes issue states, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the relationship between 'transitionId' and status changes, or provide examples of valid transitions). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Change the status') and resource ('a Jira issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_issue' which might also modify issue states, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific transition-focused tool versus broader update operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to call 'get_transitions' first to obtain transition IDs), nor does it clarify when to choose this over 'update_issue' or other sibling tools that might handle status changes differently. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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