transition_issue

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: matching ignores case and surrounding space, transition names may differ from resulting statuses, duplicate statuses are possible, error responses list all available transitions, comments are Markdown, and the comment is posted atomically with the move. This aligns with destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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 dense but efficient: every sentence adds value, from the primary purpose to matching rules to error behavior to comment semantics. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler.

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?

For a state-changing tool with an output schema and annotation coverage, the description provides all necessary invocation details: how to specify the target, what happens on ambiguity, what the error contains, and how comments are handled. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It thoroughly explains 'to' (transition vs status matching, case/space rules, error fallback) and 'comment' (Markdown, posted in same call). 'issue_key' is self-explanatory from its name, and the description handles the rest with no gaps.

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 opening sentence 'Move an issue through its workflow' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It also states 'Changes issue state,' which distinguishes it from siblings like add_comment and update_issue without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to move an issue through its workflow, with detailed guidance on transition names vs status names. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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