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 full behavioral burden. It implies a state-mutating write operation but never states permission requirements, whether the transition is reversible, workflow-dependent behavior, or what the response looks like. The mention that an invalid name returns an error listing available transitions is useful but appears only in the schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no padding. Slightly wasteful in restating the parameter forms already covered by the schema, but the prerequisite tip is well placed.

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?

No output schema exists, but for a two-parameter workflow tool the description covers purpose, inputs, and the practical prerequisite of checking current status. Missing only workflow-specific caveats (permission needs, workflow-dependent valid transitions) to be fully self-contained.

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 both parameters are already fully documented with examples and the case-insensitivity/error fallback rule. The description's restatement that either a name or numeric ID is accepted adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Change the status of a Jira issue by performing a workflow transition') and clarifies the two accepted identifier forms. It references jira_get_issue, but does not distinguish itself from the most closely related sibling, jira_get_transitions, which is the tool most likely to be confused with it.

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?

Gives clear context: read the current status with jira_get_issue before transitioning. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. how to discover valid transitions vs. jira_get_transitions), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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