motion_custom_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It names operations but lacks details on side effects (e.g., permanence of delete), authorization needs, or rate limits. The parameter requirements are clear, but the behavioral impact remains vague.

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 paragraph but front-loads the purpose. It could benefit from bullet points or separate sections for clarity, but it remains concise and avoids redundancy.

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 (12 parameters, 7 operations) and no output schema, the description covers parameter combinations well. It lacks mention of return values or error conditions, but for a management tool, the completeness is adequate.

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%, but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters per operation (e.g., 'create: workspaceId/workspaceName + name + field'). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions, helping the agent assemble valid parameter sets.

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 starts with 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects,' clearly stating the tool's purpose. It then lists distinct operations (list, create, delete, add_to/remove_from project/task), making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects.

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 explicitly states required parameters per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName'), guiding the agent on what to provide. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the operation-based structure implicitly covers usage scenarios.

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