motion_comments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Manage comments' without disclosing that it supports both read (list) and write (create) operations, or any safety or authorization context. The agent cannot infer the behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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, which is concise. However, it is too vague and could be more structured to include operation types or brief usage note. It earns its place but doesn't optimize for quick utility.

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 (two operations, four parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention that only list and create are supported, nor does it explain when to use each operation. The agent would need to infer from the schema.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No additional context about parameter relationships or usage constraints is provided.

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 states 'Manage comments on tasks', which is clear about the resource but uses the vague verb 'manage'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like motion_tasks, but it doesn't specify that only list and create operations are available, which is a gap.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like motion_tasks, nor does it highlight any prerequisites or conditions for operation types.

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