motion_recurring_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists required parameters per operation and does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, reversibility of delete, return format, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool that creates and deletes recurring tasks.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a semi-colon-separated list to convey operation dependencies efficiently, with no redundant or filler words. Though it could be structured with bullets for readability, it is suitably concise for the amount of information it carries.

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's complexity (15 parameters, nested frequency object, three operations, no output schema), the description covers the operation-parameter matrix but omits return behavior, error cases, and broader context. It does not explain what list returns, what create produces, or what delete affects (e.g., future occurrences). The schema fills in parameter details, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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?

Although the schema has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds value by grouping parameters per operation (e.g., list: workspaceId or workspaceName; create: workspaceId/workspaceName + name + assigneeId + frequency). This clarifies which parameters are needed together, which is not immediately obvious from the schema alone. The mention of frequency.type as a required sub-field is also helpful.

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 'Manage recurring tasks' with a clear resource, and the required params list enumerates the operations (list, create, delete) which define the tool's scope. It distinguishes from the likely sibling motion_tasks by focusing specifically on recurring tasks, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 parameter requirements, which gives clear context for each operation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., motion_tasks for non-recurring tasks) or include exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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