scf_transition_document

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing the admin permission needed for approving/publishing and by stating that valid targets are platform-enforced. It also signals that this is a write operation, consistent with the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the verb and resource appear first, followed by concrete transition examples and the critical admin caveat. The second sentence about platform enforcement is short and useful. No filler is present.

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 state-transition operation with 4 simple parameters, the description supplies enough context: transition path, admin permission, and platform validation. It does not specify the response format, but no output schema is present and the behavior itself is straightforward. The coverage is solid without being exhaustive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents org_id, document_id, reason, and to_status. The description's lifecycle examples add a little meaning to to_status by showing valid transitions, but most parameter semantics are already covered by the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move a document through its lifecycle.' It then gives concrete transition examples (draft to review, review to approved, approved to published) that make clear this is about status transitions, not content editing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling document tools like scf_update_document_section and scf_update_document_settings.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: whenever a document needs to advance through lifecycle states. The admin requirement for approving and publishing adds an important condition for use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.