Manage comments on a task by listing them or creating a new one.
Manage comments on tasks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor for list operation (optional) | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID to comment on or fetch comments from (required) | |
| content | No | Comment content (required for create operation) | |
| operation | Yes | Operation to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Manage' does not indicate whether operations are read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or if permissions are needed. The agent cannot assess safety or impact from the description alone.
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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. A single vague phrase does not earn its place because it omits critical operational information that would cost the agent more effort to discover.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide substantial context. It fails to mention the two operations, expected return values, or any behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without opening the schema.
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%, with each parameter (cursor, taskId, content, operation) having a descriptive comment and operation having an enum. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 applies even though the description adds no parameter-level detail.
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 phrase 'Manage comments on tasks' identifies the resource (comments on tasks), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects. However, 'Manage' is a general verb and does not specify the actual operations (list/create) that the schema reveals, so purpose is only partially clear.
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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to use list versus create. It merely states the resource without any context, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.