modify_transition

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

With no annotations, the description discloses partial update behavior and parameter effects (e.g., priority 'fires first in conflict', probability range). It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but it addresses the main behavioral traits adequately.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the action, a key note, a useful prerequisite, then a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 description covers all 8 parameters and provides helpful context (e.g., priority semantics). It does not explicitly require that the transition exists or explain error handling, but given the output schema exists, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's purpose, allowed values (e.g., distribution types), and default behavior ('omit to keep current'). This is highly informative.

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 'Modify an existing transition in the Petri net,' using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_transition' and 'remove_transition' by focusing on modification.

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 clear context: 'Only provided fields are updated — omitted fields stay unchanged.' It advises to 'Use list_elements or get_network_status to discover transition IDs first,' establishing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or contrast with other modify tools.

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