motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It details required parameters but omits consequences like deletion permanence, authentication needs, or effects on related data. The agent cannot infer side effects or safety implications.

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 dense and packs all necessary parameter requirements into a single paragraph. While it lacks visual structure (e.g., bullet points), it is front-loaded with the purpose and remains concise without superfluous words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, 7 operations) and lack of output schema, the description covers required parameters per operation but not return values, error scenarios, or behavioral nuances like workspace name as alternative to ID. It is adequate but leaves 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline clarity. The description adds operational context by linking parameters to specific operations and explaining conditions (e.g., field param required when value is non-null). This goes beyond the schema's individual 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 it manages custom fields for tasks and projects, and enumerates seven specific operations. This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that deal with other resources.

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 per-operation required parameters, guiding the agent on what to include for each action. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives, though no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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