motion_recurring_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., that delete is destructive), auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens on creation (e.g., scheduling). The description is too brief on behavioral traits beyond the operation names.

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, well-structured sentence followed by a bullet-like listing of required parameters per operation. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy, and the most critical information (operations and required params) is front-loaded.

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 covers the three operations and their required parameters, but lacks information on return values (e.g., what list returns), error handling, edge cases, or examples. Given the absence of an output schema and 15 parameters, the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by grouping required parameters per operation, which is not obvious from the schema alone (only 'operation' is globally required). This helps agents quickly determine which params to supply for each operation, going beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 states 'Manage recurring tasks' and enumerates three specific operations (list, create, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks (which likely handles non-recurring tasks). The required parameter breakdown per operation further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 gives explicit required parameters per operation, guiding when to use each operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., the sibling motion_tasks), nor does it mention when not to use it. The operational context is clear but exclusions are missing.

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