update_issue_status

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

With no annotations, the description must inform the agent about side effects and constraints. It only mentions 'transition workflow' which hints at Jira's state machine but does not disclose permissions, invalid transition handling, or whether changes are logged. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly names the verb and object. There is no redundancy or filler content, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description does not explain the significance of 'transition workflow' (e.g., valid statuses, dependency on issue type), which could be important for successful invocation. It is adequate but lacks extra context that would elevate confidence.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (status and issueKey), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Update the status of a Jira issue') and the resource (Jira issue). The parenthetical '(transition workflow)' adds specificity about the mechanism, distinguishing it from generic update_issue which likely updates arbitrary fields. This directly addresses what the tool does.

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 implies use when the goal is to change an issue's status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like update_issue. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided. The usage context is implied but not articulated.

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