execute_transition

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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: that certain transitions (e.g. close) require a resolution passed via extraFields, with a concrete example. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior, but adds meaningful transition-specific context.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the prerequisite, then the special-case requirement. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 non-destructive write with annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key prerequisites and the resolution special case. It stops short of covering error handling or the effect on existing issue state, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the extraFields example. The description's extraFields example partially duplicates the schema but reinforces the resolution use case; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: moving an issue to a new status by executing a workflow transition. Distinguishes itself from siblings like move_issue and bulk_transition_issues by tying the action to a workflow transition id.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to call get_issue_transitions first to obtain valid ids, which is strong prerequisite guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over related siblings such as bulk_transition_issues or move_issue, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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