motion_recurring_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the three operation modes, letting an agent infer read (list) versus mutating (create/delete) behavior. It does not state side effects of delete (e.g., whether the entire recurrence series is removed) or any return/error behavior, leaving a meaningful gap.

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?

Two sentences, all high-signal: first names the resource, second gives operation-specific required params. No fluff, and the most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 tool with 15 params, nested frequency objects, and three operations, the description provides the critical operation routing but relies heavily on the schema for optional params and frequency semantics. With no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value and delete side-effect context, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description's required-param mapping largely duplicates 'Required for: create/list/delete' already present in the schema properties. It usefully highlights frequency.type as part of create but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource (recurring tasks) and enumerates three concrete operations (list/create/delete) in the required-params sentence. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like motion_tasks by the 'recurring' qualifier, though the opening verb 'Manage' is 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?

The required-params-by-operation breakdown gives clear invocation rules for each operation, which helps an agent choose the operation and fill required fields. It does not, however, explain when recurring tasks should be handled here versus motion_tasks or motion_search, so exclusion/alternative guidance is absent.

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