motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists required params per operation without discussing side effects (e.g., deletion is irreversible, creation modifies schema), permissions, rate limits, or return values. Minimal behavioral context beyond operation names.

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 efficient, using a structured format with colons and line breaks to organize operation-specific requirements. It front-loads the general purpose and packs much information into a compact form, though the '(type)' and '[]' notation may be slightly unclear.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers required params per operation but lacks details on return values, error handling, idempotency, or outcome descriptions (e.g., what happens when add_to_project is called). Adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by consolidating required params per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName') and highlighting conditional requirements (e.g., 'options[] also required for select/multiSelect'), which is not present in a single view in 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 starts with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects.' This immediately distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like motion_tasks or motion_projects, which focus on different entities.

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 lists required parameters per operation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like motion_projects or motion_tasks. Usage is implied by the tool's focus on custom fields, but no when-not-to or alternative guidance is provided.

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