jira_update_story_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states that transitions are workflow-dependent, which is a useful constraint, but it omits any information about permissions, reversibility, or what the operation returns. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a useful note about workflow dependency. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary padding.

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 the core purpose and acknowledges workflow variability, but it does not explain how to discover available transitions or what the tool returns. Given the lack of an output schema and the absence of guidance on preconditions, the description is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters, including format examples and exact-match requirements. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond restating common statuses already listed in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Transition') and resource ('a Jira story'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like jira_get_story and jira_post_comment by focusing on status changes.

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 context that transitions depend on workflow configuration, implying the agent may need to check the current status first. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or give exclusions. No alternatives are named, so it earns a mid-level score.

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