create_task

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

The description discloses important non-obvious behaviors beyond the sparse annotations: parent_task_id overrides list_id when they conflict, ClickUp requires parent and child to share a list, and status is omitted unless provided so the target list's default applies. It even mentions the list_id_override field in the result, giving the agent expectations about side effects and output.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, a clear preference note, and a compact Args list. Every line provides useful information or rationale, avoiding filler. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter tool with several behavioral caveats.

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 9 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, explains inter-parameter behavior, and references the list_id_override result field. The description works with the output schema to give a full picture of the tool's behavior.

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?

Although schema coverage is 0%, the description provides thorough semantics for every parameter: priority mapping, team label lookup, parent_task_id precedence, and the nuanced behavior of status and list_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions and adds meaning far beyond the raw properties.

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 opens with 'Create a new task in a specific list,' a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes from create_sprint_task, which is a sibling tool, by noting that create_sprint_task auto-resolves the sprint list. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and differentiates it from closely related tools.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable. It says to prefer create_sprint_task for sprint tasks, tells users to use get_current_sprint or get_workspace_hierarchy to find list IDs, get_current_user to find assignee ID, and list_teams for team values. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative-tool direction.

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