transition_issue

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the method: it applies set_fields field-by-field before attempting the state change, and if a gate blocks, it returns the exact workflow rule text rather than inventing values. This transparently explains the operation's order and error-handling behavior.

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 detailed but every sentence contributes value: it explains the problem, the approach, the fallback behavior, and then lists parameters with syntax examples. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then delves into context, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (gate-aware transitions with optional field setting), the description covers prerequisites, behavior, error reporting, and parameter syntax. An output schema exists, so return details are not required in the description. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains each parameter clearly: issue_id can be an ID or URL, state is a bare state name, set_fields uses command syntax with examples ('Dev Estimation 2d QA Estimation 1d'), and instance is optional. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Change an issue's State') plus the resource (issue) and the gate-aware behavior that distinguishes it from plain update_issue or raw state changes. It clearly communicates the core function without ambiguity.

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 explains when this tool is useful: when workflow gates block transitions, it sets fields first and then transitions, reporting the blocking rule if it still fails. It implies a use case where raw update or a simple state change would be ineffective, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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