delete_goal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It simply says 'Delete a ClickUp goal,' which implies destruction but does not clarify whether deletion is permanent, irreversible, or cascades to related items. It also doesn't mention permissions, side effects, or any consequences beyond the action itself. The word 'delete' is a start but not sufficient.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation and front-loads the core action and resource. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 is simple with one required parameter and no output schema, so the description could be minimal. However, since there are no annotations, the description is expected to provide some context about side effects or limitations, which it does not. It is adequate for understanding the basic operation but leaves gaps in terms of behavioral context.

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 full coverage (100%) for the single parameter goal_id, which is described as 'The ID of the goal.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate with extra parameter-level context.

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 'Delete a ClickUp goal.' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (ClickUp goal), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on other resources like tasks or spaces. While it is minimal, it is not a tautology, as it specifies the context 'ClickUp' and the resource type. It lacks extra details like the ID parameter, but that is covered by the schema.

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 about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_goal, update_goal, or get_goals. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as having a valid goal_id, or situations where deletion might be inappropriate. There is no exclusionary context or mention of alternative tools.

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