motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. It only describes parameter requirements, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 dense paragraph that lists all operations and their required params. While front-loaded with a clear purpose, it is lengthy and could be improved with bullet points or cleaner separation to enhance readability.

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 description explains input requirements for each operation but does not describe outcomes, return values, or error handling. Without an output schema, more context on expected results is needed for complete understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, and the description summarizes required params per operation, providing some organizational value. However, the schema already includes per-parameter 'Required for' details, so the description adds limited new semantic meaning.

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 starts with 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects,' clearly defining the resource and action. It then breaks down seven distinct operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like motion_projects and motion_tasks.

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 lists required parameters per operation but does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context is clear for parameter requirements but lacks usage scenarios.

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