motion_projects

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool that performs mutations (create), this is a significant gap.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the resource and operations. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without much bloat.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values for each operation, state changes (e.g., created project is persisted), or prerequisites (e.g., workspaceId for create).

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the supported operations, which is already encoded in the 'operation' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource (Motion projects) and the supported operations (create, list, get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_workspaces by focusing on projects. However, it does not specify the exact nature of 'get' (e.g., whether it returns a single project by ID or details).

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 versus alternatives. The description only lists operations without explaining context or exclusions. For instance, it does not clarify when to use create vs list vs get, or when to prefer motion_projects over motion_tasks.

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