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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals useful conditional behavior (e.g., options[] is mandatory when create uses select/multiSelect, and valueId is used for removals while fieldId is used for additions) but is silent on side effects: delete's destructive nature, whether add/remove operations impact existing tasks and projects, reversibility, or what list returns. The mutating operations are never flagged as writes.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the rest is a dense per-operation parameter matrix with zero fluff; every clause earns its place. The single-paragraph format is less scannable than a structured list would be for a 7-operation dispatcher, but the information density and lack of redundancy make it efficient.

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 12-parameter, 7-operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the required-parameter matrix, which is the primary invocation risk. It leaves meaningful gaps: no indication of return values (especially for list), no warning about the destructive effect of delete or the side effects of add/remove operations, and no error behavior for conflicting inputs.

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 baseline is 3. The description mostly consolidates constraints already present in the schema (workspaceId/workspaceName alternatives, fieldId vs valueId distinction, options required for select/multiSelect), but it adds value by organizing these constraints into a per-operation quick-reference matrix that reduces the risk of passing the wrong parameter combination.

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 a specific resource ('custom fields for tasks and projects') and enumerates seven concrete operations, which clearly distinguishes it from all siblings (none of which concern custom fields). The verb 'Manage' is generic, but the per-operation breakdown with required params makes the purpose concrete and actionable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like motion_tasks or motion_projects, so tool-selection usage is only implied by the resource name and operation list. However, the description does give strong intra-tool routing guidance by specifying which params are required for each of the seven operations, effectively telling an agent how to invoke it correctly.

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