motion_users

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Manage users', implying write capabilities (create/update/delete), but the schema shows only read operations ('list', 'current'). This misrepresentation lowers transparency. No disclosure about authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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, which is concise but not structured. It is front-loaded with 'Manage users', which is the least specific part. The sentence is short but sacrifices clarity due to the vague verb choice. It earns its place as a minimal description but does not prioritize key information.

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 has 4 parameters with an enum operation and no output schema, the description should summarize the tool's scope (e.g., only read operations) and when to use optional parameters like teamId or workspaceId. It lacks these details, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. The description feels incomplete for a tool that could benefit from a brief usage summary.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool's description adds no additional context or meaning for the parameters. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 says 'Manage users and get current user information', but the tool only supports 'list' and 'current' operations, which are read-only. 'Manage' is a generic verb that overpromises, making the purpose vague. It correctly identifies the resource as users, but fails to specify the actual operations, so it only partially clarifies what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., motion_workspaces, motion_projects). There are no statements about prerequisites, exclusions, or when to use alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the operation enum alone.

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