motion_recurring_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens during create (e.g., task generation), delete (e.g., canceling all occurrences), or list (e.g., pagination). Key traits like idempotency, side effects on existing tasks, or authentication needs are absent.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loading the purpose and then listing required parameters per operation. It avoids redundancy but could be better structured with separate sections for each operation. The information density is appropriate for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 (15 parameters, nested frequency object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks explanations of optional parameters' impacts, return values, error handling, and behavior of recurring task management. Required fields are covered, but overall completeness is low.

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 detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description only repeats required params per operation, adding no new meaning beyond highlighting which fields are mandatory. It does not explain parameter relationships or constraints beyond what the schema offers.

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 recurring tasks' and lists required parameters per operation (list, create, delete), clearly indicating the tool's scope. However, it could be more specific about what managing entails, e.g., 'List, create, and delete recurring tasks in Motion.' The distinct operations help differentiate from sibling tools like motion_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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as motion_tasks (for non-recurring tasks). It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Only required parameters per operation are mentioned, which is more about usage requirements than comparative guidance.

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