motion_users

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'manage users,' implying mutations, but the schema's operation enum only allows read-only actions (list and current). This is misleading. No other behavioral traits (permissions, side effects, return format) are disclosed.

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 sentence, so it is concise, but it is under-specified and vague. It could be just as concise while being more informative (e.g., 'List users or get the current user's details'). The structure is simple and front-loaded, but the content is weak.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how operations map to parameters, what filters are available, or what results to expect. The lack of any return-value or behavior details leaves the agent with significant gaps.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameters or their relationships, but it does not need to compensate given the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the resource (users) and mentions two actions (manage and get current user), but 'manage' is vague and does not specify the actual operations (list and current) that the schema defines. It does distinguish from siblings like motion_tasks or motion_projects, but the purpose lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, how to choose between the 'list' and 'current' operations, or any alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for using parameters like teamId or workspaceId.

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