motion_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies read operations ('get current user information') and possible write operations ('manage users'), but doesn't clarify what 'manage' means (e.g., permissions required, side effects, rate limits). This is a significant gap for a tool that could involve mutations, leaving the agent uncertain about its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating the two distinct operations (list vs. current) for clarity, and 'manage users' is somewhat ambiguous, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 complexity of a tool with multiple operations (including potential mutations) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without guesswork.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (operation, workspaceId, workspaceName, teamId) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'manage' relates to the operation parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Manage users and get current user information' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'manage' entails (e.g., create, update, delete) and doesn't specify the resource scope (e.g., workspace users). It distinguishes from siblings like motion_tasks or motion_projects by focusing on users, but lacks specificity compared to a more precise verb+resource 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions two operations ('manage users' and 'get current user information'), but it doesn't explain when to choose list vs. current, or how it relates to other user-related tools (none listed as siblings). This leaves the agent without explicit context for selection.

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