motion_comments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'manage comments'. It does not reveal that create is a mutating operation, whether list is read-only, pagination behavior via cursor, or any side effects or permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that supports both read and 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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits details about operations and usage, making it minimally informative. Like the calibration example for under-specification, this does not count as effective conciseness.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too skeletal to be complete. It fails to explain return values, pagination, operation-specific details, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (cursor, taskId, content, operation) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the generic term 'manage', so the score is at the baseline of 3.

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 'Manage comments on tasks' identifies the resource (comments) and broadly indicates management operations, but 'manage' is vague and does not specify the exact operations (list/create) that the schema reveals. It does distinguish from sibling tools by focusing on comments, but lacks a specific verb like 'list' or 'create'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain the difference between the list and create operations. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for use, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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