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 mentions moving an issue but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., triggering workflows), or typical error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with potential impacts on issue state.

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 purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling, and while the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking given the tool's potential to alter issue states.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that 'transitionId' relates to status changes, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Move') and resource ('a Jira issue') with the target ('to a different status/state'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update_issue' or 'move_issue_to_sprint', which could involve similar actions but for different purposes.

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 like 'update_issue' or 'move_issue_to_sprint', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to know valid transition IDs from 'get_transitions'. It lacks context about when this operation is appropriate versus other issue modifications.

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