motion_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists operation names without explaining side effects, permissions, or result characteristics. It does not indicate, for example, whether create is idempotent, whether list returns all workspaces by default, or whether get requires a specific ID — information an agent needs to use the tool safely.

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 and contains no fluff, but it is underspecified for a multi-operation tool. The word 'Manage' is vague filler, and the enumeration of operations is useful but could be more structured (e.g., 'Create, list, or retrieve Motion projects'). It is concise but not optimally informative.

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 supports three distinct operations with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain the semantics of each operation (e.g., which parameters are required for create vs. get), the relationship to workspaces, or any behavioral expectations. The schema covers parameter details, but the high-level action context is missing.

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% with each of the 7 parameters having a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to since the schema is fully self-descriptive.

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 Motion projects and enumerates the supported operations (create, list, get), which clearly identifies the resource and core capabilities. However, 'Manage' is somewhat vague and doesn't distinguish between the operations beyond listing them, so it lacks the precision of a strong purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to choose among the create, list, and get operations. The description does not mention sibling tools like motion_tasks or provide any exclusions/prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the schema.

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