Smart Workflow Transition

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

The annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds the probing logic (checking workflow_get_node first, then falling back to list-state-transitions). This provides helpful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations, such as the order of operations in auto mode.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concise explanation of the auto-detection mechanism. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

While the core mechanism is explained, the description omits return value expectations, failure handling, and the practical implication of the dry_run default. Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, destructive, no output schema), a bit more context about what 'execute' produces and when it is safe to run would help, though the schema partially covers safety via the dry_run parameter.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 13 parameters, so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. It does re-emphasize the 'mode' behavior that is also documented in the enum description, but does not add new parameter-level semantics.

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's purpose: automatically detecting the workflow type (node-driven vs status-driven) and executing the appropriate transition. It distinguishes itself from siblings like workflow_transition and workflow_transition_state by emphasizing the auto-detection and fallback mechanism.

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 gives explicit context on when to use this tool: when the workflow type is unknown and auto-detection is needed. It names the underlying commands (workflow_get_node, list-state-transitions) that it probes, which implies when they might be used directly, though it does not explicitly state when to prefer alternatives.

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