jira_transition_issue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a transition ID is required and references the official API, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure handling. The explicit call to jira_get_transitions adds useful context, but the mutating nature is only implied by the word 'Transitions'.

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 two sentences plus a reference link, with no unnecessary padding. It front-loads the action, provides examples, and places the critical prerequisite prominently with 'IMPORTANT'.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and zero annotations, the description covers the key workflow step (fetching transition IDs) and the purpose. However, it does not describe return values or what a successful transition does beyond the status change, leaving a minor gap.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the example in the schema for 'fields' is also present. Thus the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transitions') and resource ('Jira issue') and gives concrete examples of statuses ('In Progress', 'Done', 'Blocked'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_get_issue by focusing on workflow status changes.

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 provides explicit guidance on a key prerequisite: 'IMPORTANT: You must first retrieve the valid transition ID by calling jira_get_transitions for this specific issue.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool, though it does not mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops 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.