motion_recurring_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool manages recurring tasks and lists required params. There is no mention of side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first sentence sets the scope, the second lists required params per operation. No wasted words, and important information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, a nested object (frequency), and no output schema. The description only covers required parameters per operation, omitting all optional parameters, default values, and any behavioral context. For a tool of this complexity, more guidance is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping required parameters by operation (list, create, delete), which provides a semantic structure beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 it manages recurring tasks, which is a specific resource distinct from sibling tools like motion_tasks. It lists the supported operations (list, create, delete), making the verb-resource relationship clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so it gets a 4.

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 explicit required parameters for each operation, helping the agent understand what inputs are necessary. It does not give guidance on when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the per-operation breakdown is clear and useful.

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