motion_users

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether operations are read-only, destructive, or require authentication. The term 'manage' subtly implies mutability, but the schema restricts to read-only operations (list, current). This lack of clarity reduces transparency.

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 with no fluff. It is concise but could be restructured to front-load the key actions (list and current) instead of the generic 'manage'.

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 is incomplete for a tool with no output schema. It does not explain return values, behavior of different operations, or how to handle errors. Combined with no annotations, the agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., workspaceId, workspaceName). It does not explain the relationship between workspaceId and workspaceName or how teamId filters results.

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 identifies the resource (users) and two actions (manage, get current user information), which matches the schema's operation enum (list, current). However, 'manage' is vague and could imply write operations not supported by the tool, reducing clarity. The description distinguishes this tool from siblings focused on other resources (comments, projects, tasks).

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 like motion_tasks or motion_workspaces. The description does not specify when not to use it, mention prerequisites, or differentiate between the list and current operations.

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