jira_workflow_transition_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It acknowledges that transitions can require fields, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as permission requirements, irreversibility, or impact on issue history. This is minimal disclosure 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 concise at two sentences, with the main action stated first. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites.

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?

The description covers the basic function, but lacks context on prerequisites (get_transitions), error handling, and behavioral details. An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but overall completeness is adequate with gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for all three parameters, providing complete descriptions. The tool's description adds no additional parameter details beyond the general note that fields may be required. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 transitions an issue to a new status using a workflow transition. The verb 'Transition' and 'Executes' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_transitions by implying this tool performs the actual transition, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 mentions that transitions may require additional fields, giving some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention the prerequisite of fetching transitions using get_transitions.

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