motion_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists operations without revealing side effects (e.g., create is destructive, get is read-only), permissions, rate limits, or return values. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the operation enum already implies.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and operations. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not clarify how parameters relate to specific operations (e.g., get requires projectId) or what the return format is. However, the rich schema compensates for parameter details, making the description adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has a descriptive comment. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond naming the operations, which is already captured in the enum. The baseline score of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource ('Motion projects') and explicitly lists supported operations ('create, list, and get'). This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like motion_tasks and motion_schedules.

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 implies usage for project management via the resource name and operation list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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