transition_document_state

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 discloses a key rejection condition ('Transitions may be rejected if the flow requires an approver the API key's user is not'), which is valuable. However, it does not describe success behavior, return values, or validation details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the primary action, where to get valid inputs, and a critical failure condition. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input sourcing, and a key error condition. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits any details about the success response or the exact transition rules.

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 schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context for state_id by instructing where to obtain valid values (list_flow_states), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Target state id' and directly aids correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Move a document to another state in its flow.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document (read) and update_document (content update), and it explicitly relates to flow states.

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 usage context by directing the user to list_flow_states for valid state IDs and linking the flow to the content type. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the instruction to get states from the sibling tool implies the proper workflow. The mention of potential rejection due to approver permissions also gives situational awareness.

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