roadmap_transition

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds two meaningful traits beyond the schema: 'Manager-only' signals an authorization requirement, and 'guarded' implies precondition or transition validation. However, it does not specify allowed transitions, side effects, reversibility, or what the guard actually enforces, leaving significant gaps for a lifecycle mutation.

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, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise and leads with the key constraints. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 tool with three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, allowed state transitions, guard behavior, and outcome details. The 'Manager-only guarded' phrase is a start, but much of what an agent needs to invoke this safely and correctly 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 description coverage is 0% and all three required parameters (roadmap_id, target_status, reason) lack any schema-level documentation. The description adds no meaning for any parameter: it does not explain valid target statuses, why a reason is required, or what roadmap_id refers to. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb ('transition') and resource ('Roadmap lifecycle'), making it clear this changes a roadmap's lifecycle status. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like roadmap_add, roadmap_show, roadmap_list, and roadmap_link_task. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as roadmap_add, roadmap_show, or roadmap_snapshot. The only condition given is 'Manager-only', which implies a role restriction but not a usage context. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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