motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only lists required parameters per operation and does not mention side effects (e.g., deletion is irreversible), permissions required, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a mutation-heavy tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, then concisely lists required params per operation. It is dense but each clause carries relevant information. A more structured bullet list would improve scannability, but as a single paragraph it is acceptable.

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 has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the parameter requirements thoroughly. However, it omits any information about return values, errors, or side effects, which is necessary for a management tool with multiple operations. The absence of output schema makes this gap more noticeable.

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% and each parameter already includes 'Required for' notes. The description adds value by regrouping parameters by operation, which is convenient but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema. It also does not clarify value types or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects', which clearly identifies the resource and general action. It then enumerates all supported operations (list, create, delete, add/remove to/from project/task), distinguishing this tool from siblings like motion_tasks and motion_projects that handle other entities.

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 implies usage by listing operations, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks phrases like 'use for' or 'instead of', so guidance is only implicit from the tool's name and scope.

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