motion_projects

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'manage' implies mutation, but the description does not specify whether operations are destructive, idempotent, or require permissions. It lacks details beyond the supported operation verbs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, earning a high conciseness score.

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 7 parameters, 3 operations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not clarify which parameters apply to which operation, nor does it mention return behavior or edge cases. The tool's complexity demands more explicit documentation.

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?

All 7 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no new semantic information. It does not explain conditional requirements like projectId for 'get' or name for 'create', but the schema descriptions partially cover that.

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 that the tool manages Motion projects and supports three specific operations (create, list, get). This distinguishes it from siblings like motion_tasks or motion_workspaces, though it could be more explicit about the CRUD nature.

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. While siblings deal with different entities, the description does not offer context-dependent recommendations or exclusions.

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