motion_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Manage' implies possible mutation, while 'get current user information' suggests a read operation, but the description does not clarify whether operations are read-only or have side effects. It also omits details about authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential impact on data.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose ('Manage users') and adds a specific sub-purpose ('get current user information'). While it is brief, it is not overly verbose and is easy to parse.

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 4 parameters, a required operation enum, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that 'operation' is required, what the two enum values do, or which parameters apply to each operation. An agent relying on this description would lack critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. The description vaguely maps 'manage users' to the parameters but does not explain how teamId, workspaceId, or workspaceName are used.

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 mentions 'users' as the resource and includes 'get current user information', which implies a specific action. However, the verb 'manage' is vague and could suggest CRUD operations, not clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like motion_workspaces or motion_projects. The description does not explicitly state the operations 'list' and 'current' that the schema defines, making it less specific than ideal.

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 such as motion_workspaces or motion_projects. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent decide between tools. It merely states a broad purpose without actionable usage direction.

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