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 does not explain the side effects of operations (e.g., deleting a custom field definition vs. removing an assignment), what happens on success/failure, or any permissions needed. The description only lists required parameters, which is already in the schema. This leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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 dense run-on sentence containing all required parameter mappings. It's concise in that there's no fluff, but the structure is poor—it would be far more readable as a bulleted list. The front-loaded purpose statement is good, but the subsequent list is hard to parse quickly. Scores 3 because every piece of information is relevant, but the layout hinders comprehension.

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 12 parameters, the description prioritizes parameter requirements but omits the higher-level context of what each operation does and what the user should expect. There is no output schema, so the description should explain that list returns custom field definitions, create creates a new field, etc. The operation names give some hint, but behaviors like the difference between fieldId and valueId are not explained. The description is complete for parameter validation but not for operational understanding.

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 adds value by consolidating the required parameters per operation, but it introduces no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. For example, it repeats that 'options[]' is required for select/multiSelect, which is already in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects.' It enumerates seven distinct operations (list, create, delete, add_to_project, etc.), giving a specific verb+resource scope. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the focus on custom fields is unique and the operation list makes the tool's role clear.

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 provides operation-specific required parameter lists, which serves as clear when-to-use guidance for each operation. For example, 'create: workspaceId/workspaceName + name + field (type); options[] also required for select/multiSelect.' This helps an agent understand exactly what is needed for each scenario. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion criteria, so it's not a 5.

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