motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutating operations (create, delete, add/remove) but does not describe side effects, reversibility, permissions, rate limits, or the nature of changes. The description focuses on parameter requirements rather than behavioral traits.

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 efficiently structured: a short purpose statement followed by operation-specific requirements listed clearly. It is relatively long due to the number of operations, but every sentence adds necessary information. Could be slightly more concise by reducing redundancy (e.g., repeating 'workspaceId/workspaceName' in multiple operations).

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 thoroughly covers input parameter requirements for all operations. However, it does not explain return values (e.g., list operations return custom fields, create returns a field object) or error conditions. Given the complexity (12 parameters, 7 operations) and lack of output schema, some output/error context would improve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds significant value by grouping required parameters per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName'), which is not captured in the schema's flat 'required' array. This organized presentation greatly aids agent understanding.

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 custom fields for tasks and projects' and enumerates seven specific operations (list, create, delete, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other entities.

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 params per operation' for each of the seven operations, guiding the agent on when to use each operation and what parameters are necessary. It does not, however, indicate when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools, but within the scope of custom fields management it is clear.

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