Moderation Transition Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the write mechanism (config save on the workflow), the validation behavior (errors name missing states and list existing ones), and the weight default semantics. It omits auth/permission expectations and idempotency, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by rationale and then constraints/error behavior in a logical order. The internal Drupal mechanism sentence is slightly more detail than strictly needed for tool selection, but not wasteful.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose, mechanism, prerequisites, and one parameter default, which is sufficient for a 6-param create tool. It could add brief guidance on workflow_id/transition_id formats to be complete.

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 must compensate. It adds real meaning for weight (default 0 = first, higher = append) and for from_states/to_state (must already exist in the workflow), but workflow_id, transition_id, and label remain unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Create a new moderation transition on a workflow') that cleanly separates it from moderation_transition_list/get/delete/execute. It also explains the non-obvious mechanism (added via WorkflowTypeInterface::addTransition, not a JSON:API POST), so an agent understands what is actually being created.

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?

Explains why this tool exists rather than a generic JSON:API POST or config set, which implicitly guides when to use it, and states the prerequisite that origin/target states must already exist. It does not name a specific sibling alternative or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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