statuses

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions like delete and reorder, but does not explain consequences (e.g., irreversibility), required permissions, or side effects. The description does not go beyond a basic action enumeration.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides a clear overview of actions but omits usage nuances such as requiring the full statuses array for update/delete/reorder. The schema documents parameter details, so this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

While the schema covers 100% of parameters descriptively, the description adds meaning to the 'action' enum by spelling out the exact actions (list, create, update, delete, reorder), which the schema does not elaborate. This adds value beyond the structured parameter descriptions.

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 tool manages custom statuses on ClickUp lists and enumerates specific actions: list, create, update, delete, reorder. This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which focus on statuses.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to manage statuses on a list), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. The context is clear but not elaborated.

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