goals_key_results_update

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits beyond the verb 'Update'. It does not mention permissions, partial update semantics, error behavior, or return format, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core action and object.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks output/return information and behavioral details, especially given no output schema or annotations. It covers purpose but not side effects or prerequisites.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters (name, goal_id, key_result_id), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and no additional param guidance is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a key result') with context ('under a ClickUp goal'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like goals_key_results_create and goals_key_results_delete.

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 implies usage context (updating an existing key result within a goal) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It is clear enough for basic selection, but lacks exclusions or prerequites.

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