transition_issue

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It only states the high-level action and the prerequisite; it does not reveal that the operation is a state mutation, whether it requires permissions, what happens with an invalid transition ID, or what the response contains. The get_transitions reference is a usage hint, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence with the action front-loaded and the necessary prerequisite immediately after. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers the action and the key prerequisite. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits side effects, error behavior, and return value expectations. It is adequate but leaves room for richer operational context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that transitionId must be a valid ID retrieved from get_transitions, giving meaning beyond the schema's terse '전환 ID' label. issueIdOrKey gains no extra meaning, but the transitionId clarification is useful.

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 the verb '전환합니다' (transition) and the resource '이슈 상태' (issue status), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like update_issue, but the notion of transitioning status is distinct enough in context.

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 a clear precondition: '먼저 get_transitions로 유효한 전환 ID를 확인하세요' (first check the valid transition ID with get_transitions). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but since this is the only transition tool, the prerequisite is sufficient guidance.

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