motion_custom_fields

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., deleting a field in use), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a tool with multiple operations, this is a significant gap.

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 verbose and uses a dense format with slashes and semicolons, making it slightly harder to parse. A bulleted or structured list would improve readability, but it does efficiently pack a lot of 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 complexity (12 params, 7 operations, no output schema), the description covers per-operation parameter requirements well but lacks context like operation ordering (e.g., create before add_to_project) or return value details. The high schema coverage compensates partially.

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% and already documents each parameter, but the description adds critical value by mapping required parameters to each operation (e.g., 'fieldId required for delete'), which is absent from the schema's required array. This enhances semantic understanding.

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 'Manage custom fields for tasks and projects' and enumerates all operations (list, create, delete, add/remove from project/task), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other entities like comments or tasks.

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?

It explicitly lists required parameters per operation (e.g., 'list: workspaceId or workspaceName'), guiding the agent on when to use each operation. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the context with sibling tools reduces ambiguity.

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