motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains parameter requirements and the distinction between fieldId and valueId, but does not disclose the effects of destructive operations (e.g., deletion) or any side effects. The operational mechanics are clear, but behavioral outcomes beyond invocation are not fully covered.

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 compact, single-sentence, and uses a semicolon-separated list to convey operation-specific requirements without fluff. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and uses every word to convey actionable information.

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?

For a multi-operation tool with 12 parameters, the description is highly complete in guiding correct invocation by stating required params per operation. It does not cover return values or error handling, but given the complexity and the absence of an output schema, the coverage is strong.

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% and each parameter already includes descriptions like 'Required for: create.' The description adds a consolidated operation-required summary, which is convenient but does not significantly go beyond the schema's own semantics. It repeats rather than deepens the existing parameter meaning.

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 begins with 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects,' which clearly states the verb 'Manage' and the resource 'custom fields' for tasks/projects. It enumerates specific operations (list, create, delete, add_to_project, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle tasks, schedules, etc.

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 explicit required parameters for each operation, effectively serving as usage instructions. It does not mention when to avoid using this tool or alternatives, but the operation-specific guidance is clear and actionable.

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