motion_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that create, list, and get operations are supported, but does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a project requires a name), authentication needs, rate limits, or any state changes. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs write operations.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to the meaning. For a simple CRUD-style tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to provide complete context. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how the operations interact with parameters like workspaceId and allWorkspaces. Users would need to rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient for task selection and invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already contains thorough descriptions for all seven parameters, including the enum for operation and caveats for allWorkspaces. Thus the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool manages Motion projects and explicitly lists 'create, list, and get' operations, giving a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the 'project' resource, though the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic and doesn't highlight specific unique capabilities.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like motion_tasks or motion_workspaces. The operation enum (create/list/get) implies usage, but the description does not provide decision criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when each operation is appropriate.

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