goals_update

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose side effects, permissions, or partial-update behavior. It only says 'update ... name and/or due date', which hints at optional fields but does not state what happens if only goal_id is provided, whether the goal must exist, or if changes are reversible.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately concise for a simple update tool.

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 update tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It covers the purpose and key parameters but omits return-value expectations and permission requirements. The 'and/or' phrasing mitigates some ambiguity, but more context would be helpful.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds the 'and/or' semantics, clarifying that name and due_date are independently optional and can be updated together or separately. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the action ('Update'), the resource ('a ClickUp goal'), and the specific mutable fields ('name and/or due date'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like goals_create, goals_get, and goals_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 for updating goal fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on prerequisites like locating the goal_id or exclusions such as fields not updatable.

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