motion_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only lists operations without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 short sentence that front-loads the overall purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from structured breakdown of operations for rapid scanning.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. It also fails to clarify conditional parameter requirements (e.g., projectId needed for get, name for create), leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully explains each parameter. The overall description does not add additional meaning beyond listing the operations, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 manages Motion projects and supports three specific operations (create, list, get). This sufficiently distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage other entities like comments or tasks, though no explicit differentiation is made.

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 implies usage via the operations parameter but provides no explicit guidance on when to use each operation or when not to use the tool. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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