motion workflow revise brief

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

Annotations cover only safety flags (not readOnly, not destructive, not idempotent), leaving the description to disclose the real behavior: it restarts stage review and preserves prior history. That is valuable context annotations cannot express, though it does not say whether the brief is replaced wholesale or merged, nor what happens to prior reviews.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the action and its effect front-loaded and the usage exclusion pushed to the end. Nothing needs trimming or reordering.

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?

With annotations, a nested input schema, and an output schema present, the description only needs to cover purpose, side effects and routing, which it does. The remaining gap is whether resubmitting a brief replaces the existing brief entirely or patches it, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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 67% and the schema already documents workflowId and the revision staleness rule, so the description is not obligated to repeat them. However, it adds nothing about the nested brief object or the replace-vs-merge semantics, which is the one ambiguity an agent would want resolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record a changed brief or approach') plus the concrete effect ('restart stage review while preserving history'), which separates it from pure review tools like motion_workflow_review. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ('incorporate user feedback, changed references or rethink an exhausted approach') and an explicit exclusion ('not to silently bypass failed reviews'). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs to choose this over the review siblings.

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