motion_recurring_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It reveals required parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects of create/delete, required permissions, reversibility, or response formats. For a tool capable of mutation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 followed by a compact operation-to-required-params mapping. It conveys the core function and key usage constraints without waste. Every segment serves a purpose, making it highly effective for quick scanning.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (15 params, nested frequency object, three operations), the description only covers required parameters. It omits behavioral details, return values, and operation-specific outcomes, all of which are important given there is no output schema. The rich parameter schema covers field meanings but not the operational flow, leaving the description insufficient for full autonomous use.

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?

The schema already describes every parameter with 100% coverage, including required-for notes. The description adds a per-operation summary that condenses this information into a single line, offering marginal convenience but no new semantic info beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('recurring tasks') and lists the three operations (list, create, delete) with required parameters. While the verb 'manage' is generic, the operation breakdown makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the sibling motion_tasks tool by the recurring-task resource.

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 explicit required parameter mappings for each operation, which is helpful for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like motion_tasks, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the parameter lists. The usage context is implied but not fully differentiated.

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