jira_transition_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the dual behavior (listing vs applying) and mentions selection by id or name, but it does not mention side effects of applying a transition, such as changing the issue status irreversibly or triggering notifications. This is a notable gap 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 a single, compact sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and packs both modes concisely, making every word count.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return for the list mode ('List available transitions') but leaves the apply mode's return unspecified. Given the simple 2-parameter structure and the clear explanation of the two modes, it is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from noting the result of applying a transition.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions ('Issue key' and 'Transition id or name. Omit to just list available transitions'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the 'id or name' selection and the omission behavior.

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: 'List available transitions for an issue, or apply a transition by id or name.' It uses specific verbs (list, apply) and identifies the resource (transitions for an issue), distinguishing it from sibling tools like jira_search or jira_update_issue.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list or apply transitions for an issue. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives, but the exclusive focus on transitions makes the usage context clear without needing exclusions.

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