motion_recurring_tasks

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

There are no annotations to cover safety/read-only hints, and the description only lists required params; it does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a recurring task schedules it; deletion is permanent) or return values.

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 with a compact list, front-loading the verb+resource and providing essential per-operation requirements without any fluff.

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 params, nested frequency object, no output schema), this description is too terse. It doesn't explain how to construct a valid frequency configuration or any behavioral expectations, leaving the agent reliant on the schema for most details.

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 15 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds only an operation-to-parameter mapping, which is already embedded in each parameter's 'Required for' notes. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool manages recurring tasks and enumerates three operations (list, create, delete) with required params. The term 'recurring' distinguishes it from regular task tools like motion_tasks, though 'manage' is somewhat generic.

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?

Provides explicit required-parameter sets per operation, giving clear context for when to use each operation. However, it lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools (e.g., when to use motion_tasks instead).

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