Transition issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (moving an issue through its workflow) and notes that required fields come from get_issue_transitions, but it does not mention side effects such as status change irreversibility, permissions, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 with no filler; the main action is stated first and the prerequisite is after. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 mutation with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does and how to source the required transition data. It omits minor details like optionality of fields or response shape, but the schema covers the parameters and the prerequisite covers invocation.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds the useful sequencing hint that transitionId and fields should be discovered via get_issue_transitions, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema states.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Move') with a clear resource ('an issue') and scope ('through its workflow'), which distinguishes this from sibling update_issue or get_issue_transitions. It also immediately names the companion tool get_issue_transitions, reinforcing the tool's role as the action that performs the transition.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite workflow: 'Use get_issue_transitions first to find the transition ID and required fields.' It gives clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not enumerate alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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