update_motion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: (1) all fields are optional, meaning only specified fields are changed (partial update), and (2) plan updates require sending the full replacement list, preventing accidental data loss. This goes beyond the schema and provides essential operational context.

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 with no wordiness. The first sentence states purpose and optionality; the second addresses the most complex parameter (plan) with actionable guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (6 params, nested plan objects, no output schema), the description covers the key pitfalls: partial update semantics and the full-replacement requirement for plans. It doesn't mention return values, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise sufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

However, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that fields are optional (only include what to change) and that plan is a full replacement rather than a merge. This helps an agent understand the 'behavior' of each parameter, complementing the 100% 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a motion'), listing the modifiable fields (summary, body, priority, or plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_motion (creation), get_motion (retrieval), and approve/reject (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 clear context on when to use the tool (updating existing motion fields) and gives explicit instruction for plan updates: 'use get_motion first to see the current plan, then modify and send it back.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the usage pattern is clear enough for an agent.

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