motion_comments

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'manage comments.' It doesn't mention side effects of creating comments, permission requirements, or return formats. This is a significant gap for a tool with mutating and listing capabilities.

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 extremely concise at four words, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. However, the brevity sacrifices specificity, making it less helpful than a slightly longer, more informative description.

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?

The tool supports two operations (list and create) with pagination, but the description doesn't explain how the operation parameter controls behavior or what the response contains. No output schema exists to compensate, so the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (operation, taskId, content, cursor), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 deals with comments on tasks, which is a clear resource, but uses the vague verb 'manage' instead of specifying concrete operations like list or create. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the name and resource imply a unique focus on comments.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool instead of other motion_* tools, nor when to choose the 'list' operation versus 'create'. This leaves the agent without context for selecting this tool.

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