motion_comments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it reveals nothing beyond the vague 'manage' phrase. There is no mention of side effects, return behavior, pagination, permissions, or operation-specific effects.

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 extremely concise, using only five words with no wasted content. However, it is under-specified for a tool with two operations and four parameters, and the single phrase lacks structural separation between concerns.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is almost entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, or what the 'create' operation requires beyond the schema fields, leaving the agent without essential execution context.

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 schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as examples or dependencies, but also doesn't mislead.

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 'Manage comments on tasks' identifies the resource (comments on tasks) but uses the vague verb 'manage' without specifying the concrete operations (list, create) available in the schema. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by resource type but lacks a clear action scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain how to choose between the 'list' and 'create' operations. It gives no context about prerequisites, workflows, or exclusions.

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