ClickUp CLI

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation action, Enterprise plan requirement, and return of the updated object. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on child objects, member visibility changes) or reversibility, which are relevant for an ACL change.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers object types, endpoint, plan requirement, and return value. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return of the updated object, which is helpful. It lacks error scenarios or deeper ACL details, but for a focused tool, it is mostly complete. The Enterprise plan note is a critical prerequisite.

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 schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'private' (true = private, false = public) and noting that 'team_id' can be omitted to use the default workspace. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the 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: 'Change the privacy (ACL) of a ClickUp hierarchy object' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_space_update by focusing exclusively on privacy toggling (private/public). The mention of 'space/folder/list' and the v3 ACL endpoint provides precise scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: changing privacy of hierarchy objects. It notes the Enterprise plan requirement and references list endpoints for obtaining IDs. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative update tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts from the Get Task response (no dedicated endpoint) and lists the fields returned. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or confirm read-only behavior (though implied). This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supplementary implementation details and a sibling reference. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return format (attachments array with specific fields) and the technical workaround. It adequately covers usage, parameters, and return shape for a simple list tool, though could mention pagination or limits if any exist.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: task_id source ('Obtain from clickup_task_list') and team_id optionality ('default workspace from config'). This adds meaningful value beyond the 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 uses a clear verb+resource ('List files attached to a ClickUp task') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_attachment_upload by noting the upload alternative. It also explains the implementation detail (extracts from Get Task response), adding purpose clarity.

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 explicitly directs to use clickup_attachment_upload for adding files, providing clear context for when to choose an alternative. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or any exclusions, which would make it a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully conveys behavioral traits: the file is read from disk, posted as multipart/form-data, stored on CDN, and returns the attachment object. It also notes size limits. This is above average for transparency.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, mechanism, sibling reference, and return value. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers operation, data flow, return format, and a link to the sibling tool. Minor gap: no error handling details.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, and the description adds value by explaining that the filename becomes the attachment title and that size limits apply. task_id's description guides to clickup_task_list for retrieval.

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 uploads a local file as an attachment to a ClickUp task. It includes technical details (multipart/form-data, CDN) and distinguishes from the sibling tool clickup_attachment_list by directing the user to use that for viewing.

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 specifies when to use the tool (to upload a file as an attachment) and mentions the alternative clickup_attachment_list for viewing. It could be improved by adding conditions like file size limits or prerequisites, but context is generally clear.

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

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains key behaviors: requires Enterprise plan, uses cursor pagination, returns array of audit event objects with specific fields. This adds value beyond the schema by disclosing pagination and return format.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, requirement, and behavior. No redundancy, front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence adds value.

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 description is adequate for a read-only query tool but lacks detail on output structure (e.g., exact fields of audit event objects, pagination details). Without an output schema, more specificity would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the ClickUp audit log (who did what, when)' with specific filtering capabilities (event type, user, date range). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming a unique resource (audit log) not present in other 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?

Mentions Enterprise plan requirement, v3 cursor pagination, and sourcing IDs from other tools (clickup_workspace_list, clickup_member_list). While there is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance, the context around prerequisites is clear.

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

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

Discloses endpoint, return values (ok:true or error), and error conditions (missing, malformed, expired, revoked). Without annotations, this is nearly complete.

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 concise sentences with essential information and no fluff.

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 no output schema, it explains return values and errors. Provides context and alternative tool. Fully complete for an auth check.

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?

No parameters, so description adds nothing beyond schema. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.

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?

Clearly states it verifies API token validity by hitting /user endpoint, and distinguishes from sibling clickup_whoami.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (token check) and when to use alternative (clickup_whoami for profile).

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. States creation and return of object with id. Does not disclose auth requirements or rate limits, but clearly implies a non-destructive create operation.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose and differentiates, second provides workflow hint, third states return value. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

Covers creation, alternative for DMs, member addition workflow, and return value. Lacks permission details but schema handles team_id default. No output schema, so return value description is adequate.

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 all 4 parameters at 100%. Description adds context about description being optional and return value but does not significantly deepen parameter understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states the verb 'create' and resource 'ClickUp Chat channel in a workspace'. Differentiates from sibling clickup_chat_dm for one-on-one messages. Mentions return value includes new id.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus clickup_chat_dm for one-on-one messages. Also advises to add members later via channel-members endpoint. Could mention prerequisites like workspace ID but schema covers that.

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

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it is destructive, irreversible, cascading (deletes messages and replies), removes the channel for all members, and returns an empty object. This exceeds transparency expectations.

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 two sentences plus parameter details, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, emphasizing destructiveness, advising user confirmation, and specifying the return value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the return type. It fully explains the tool's effects, prerequisites (user confirmation), and scope (workspace-wide). For a delete tool, this is 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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema by telling users where to obtain channel_id and team_id (from specific list tools) and reminding that channel deletion cascades to messages. This is crucial for correct usage.

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 permanently deletes a ClickUp Chat channel along with all its messages and replies. It uses strong verbs like 'permanently delete', 'destructive', and 'irreversible', making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like update or get.

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 explicitly instructs to confirm with the user before calling, providing a clear when-to-use guideline. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the destructive nature implies it should be used sparingly. Still, it provides strong guidance.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description correctly indicates it's a read operation returning user objects, but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. Adequate but minimal.

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, no extraneous information. Action is front-loaded with 'List the users...' and the key distinction is provided succinctly.

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 list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter origins, and what to expect in the return. Could be improved by mentioning if pagination is supported, but overall sufficient.

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?

Both parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds valuable context on how to obtain the IDs from other tools (clickup_chat_channel_list, clickup_workspace_list) and notes the default workspace behavior.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'users who follow a ClickUp Chat channel', and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'clickup_chat_channel_members' by noting that followers are a subset of members.

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?

Provides context that followers are a subset of members, helping distinguish from the sibling tool. However, lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance beyond this comparison.

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

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

With no annotations, the description correctly indicates it is a read operation (fetch metadata) and states what it returns, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently includes limitation, alternative, and return value in just three sentences with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields returned (name, description, visibility, member count, latest activity) and clarifies it returns the channel object, making it reasonably complete for a simple fetch tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by telling how to obtain channel_id (from clickup_chat_channel_list) and explaining when team_id can be omitted.

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 it fetches metadata for a single ClickUp chat channel, listing specific fields (name, description, visibility, member count, latest activity). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool clickup_chat_message_list by noting it does not return messages.

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?

Provides a clear alternative (clickup_chat_message_list) for when messages are needed, but does not explicitly differentiate from other channel-related siblings like clickup_chat_channel_list or clickup_chat_channel_update.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully explain behavior. It notes pagination and that the tool lists channels the user can see (implying authorization). However, it does not disclose details like rate limits, required permissions beyond authentication, or how pagination works (e.g., page size, cursor usage). The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the operation and providing pagination details, return fields, and an alternative tool. No redundant information, front-loaded with primary purpose.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return fields (id, name, visibility, topic, last_message_at) and mentions pagination. It also references a sibling for creation. It does not mention other relevant siblings like get or delete, but the core information is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% description coverage (both parameters have meaningful descriptions). The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema; it only lists return fields. The schema already explains the parameters well, so the description adds minimal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'List all ClickUp Chat channels in a workspace that the authenticated user can see.' It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (chat channels), and distinguishes from siblings like clickup_chat_channel_create (create) and clickup_chat_channel_get (single channel).

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 mentions 'Uses v3 cursor pagination' implying it's for bulk listing, and explicitly says 'Use clickup_chat_channel_create to create new channels,' guiding when to use an alternative. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases like retrieving a single channel, which is served by clickup_chat_channel_get.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the membership distinction but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. The return format is mentioned but not additional behavioral traits.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose, scope, and alternative are presented concisely and front-loaded.

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 list operation, the description covers purpose, return format, and differentiation from sibling. It does not mention pagination or filtering, but these are not critical for basic usage. Overall complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema descriptions already explain how to obtain channel_id and team_id. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists members who can read and post, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'clickup_chat_channel_followers' by clarifying the different access levels.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool for notification-receivers, guiding the user on which tool to use. However, it does not mention prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, but description adds that it returns the updated channel object. Does not mention permissions or side effects, but adequate for a simple update operation.

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, followed by exclusion and return info. No verbose or redundant text.

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 no output schema, description mentions return value. Clearly covers the two updatable fields (name, description) and identifies required param. Complete for its functionality.

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 coverage is 100%, and description adds useful hints like obtaining channel_id from list tool and uniqueness constraint for name, adding value beyond 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 tool renames a chat channel or changes its description, with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools for membership/visibility changes.

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?

Explicitly directs to use channel-members and channel-followers tools for membership/visibility changes, providing clear when-not and alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is idempotent (create or fetch), that channels are grouped by participant set, and that it returns the channel object with its id. This provides good behavioral insight, though it omits details like permission requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: three sentences total. The first sentence defines the action, the second explains group behavior and return value, and the third provides a follow-up action. No filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the input parameters (team_id and user_ids) with guidance on obtaining them, mentions the participant limit, and specifies the return value (channel object with id). It lacks details about error handling or default behavior when the workspace is omitted, but overall it covers the essential 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful constraint for user_ids: 'ClickUp permits up to 15 participants for a group DM'. This enriches the semantics marginally, but since the schema already explains parameter sources, the contribution is limited.

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's purpose: 'Create or fetch the direct-message channel between the authenticated user and one or more other workspace members'. It specifies that it handles DMs (direct messages) and group DMs, distinguishing it from other channel tools like clickup_chat_channel_create which likely deals with non-DM channels.

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 provides clear usage context: it creates or fetches a DM channel. It also advises following up with clickup_chat_message_send using the returned channel id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like clickup_chat_channel_create for non-DM channels.

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

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

No annotations present, but description fully discloses destructive nature, removal of threaded replies, permission requirements, and return value ('empty object on success').

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?

Four efficient sentences; each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy. Critical details are front-loaded.

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 simple 2-param tool with no output schema, description covers all necessary context: action, scope, permissions, error condition, and success result.

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?

Adds value beyond schema: message_id references where to obtain it, team_id notes optional default behavior. Schema coverage is 100% but description enriches each parameter.

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?

Explicitly states 'permanently delete a message' and specifies 'from a ClickUp chat channel or DM thread', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update or send.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: describes irreversibility, who can delete (author or admin), and what happens on unauthorized attempt (403 error). Implies when not to use.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: only top-level messages, newest-first ordering, and v3 cursor pagination. Does not mention authentication or side effects, but these are minimal for a read operation.

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?

Three focused sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with the main action and key differentiator. No redundant words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return type (array of message objects + next_cursor) and pagination. For a listing tool with this complexity and parameter coverage, it is adequately 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds extra context for all three parameters: channel_id from chat_channel_list, cursor from previous response, team_id from workspace_list. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the 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 tool lists messages in a ClickUp Chat channel, specifies ordering (newest first), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clickup_chat_reply_list for threaded replies.

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?

Provides direct context on when to use (list messages) and mentions the alternative for threaded replies. Also explains pagination cursor usage. Could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description reveals key behavior: creates a new top-level message and returns the message object with id. It does not mention potential side effects or limitations, but the core mutation is clearly conveyed.

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 well-structured sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second covers alternatives, return value, and chaining. No wasted words.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, return value, and parameter sourcing. It is complete and self-contained.

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 100%, the description adds value by explaining how to obtain IDs from other tools (channel_id from clickup_chat_channel_list, team_id from clickup_workspace_list) and notes the default for type. This enhances understanding beyond the 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 'Post a new top-level message to a ClickUp Chat channel' and distinguishes from sibling tools for replies and DMs, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (top-level messages) and when to use alternatives (clickup_chat_reply_send for replies, clickup_chat_dm for DMs). Also suggests how to use the returned id for reactions and replies.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the text replaces the entire body (not appended), returns the updated object, and that a 403 error occurs for unauthorized users. This covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Three efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds authorization constraint, third explains replacement behavior and return type. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Perfectly concise.

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 mutation tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, prerequisites (authorization), behavior (full replacement), and return value. No gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for each parameter. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool edits an existing ClickUp Chat message (verb 'edit', resource 'existing message'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_chat_message_send (create) and clickup_chat_message_delete (delete) by specifying the action is modification. The scope is precise.

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?

Description provides explicit constraints: only author or admin can edit, others get 403. It implies usage context (must have message_id from list tools) but does not name alternative tools for when to use send or delete instead. Still clear on when to use and authorization requirements.

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

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

Discloses idempotency (no-op if already reacted) and success return type (empty object). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden; however, it does not mention authorization requirements or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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 cover purpose, behavior, and return. No fluff; every sentence provides distinct value. Ideal length for a simple 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 reaction-add tool, the description covers the core functionality, idempotency, and success response. It lacks mention of error cases (e.g., invalid message_id, permissions) but is still fairly complete given the tool's low complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Add an emoji reaction') and the resource ('ClickUp Chat message'), and includes idempotency behavior that distinguishes it from other reaction actions. No ambiguity.

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?

While the description implies safe repeated use via 'no-op', it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like clickup_chat_reaction_list or clickup_chat_reaction_remove. Missing context on when this is appropriate versus alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format (array of reaction summary objects with emoji, count, users) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential empty results. Minimal disclosure beyond the obvious action.

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?

Description is a single sentence followed by a short, clear return summary. No redundant information; every word serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core action and quickly explains the output structure.

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 no output schema, description provides a high-level summary of return fields (emoji, count, users). However, it lacks details about exact field names, error conditions, or behavior when no reactions exist. Adequate but could be more complete, especially for an agent expecting structured output.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already explains message_id and team_id with references to other tools. The description adds no additional parameter semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists emoji reactions on a ClickUp Chat message, grouped by emoji, including count and users. It specifies the resource (message), verb (list), and output structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_chat_reaction_add or clickup_chat_reaction_remove. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 (listing reactions for a chat message) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clickup_chat_reaction_add or clickup_chat_reaction_remove. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from sibling names.

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

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

With no annotations, description discloses key behavioral traits: removals are scoped to own reaction, no-op on missing reaction, and returns empty object on success. This is sufficient for a simple mutation 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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and behavior with no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 straightforward reaction removal tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, its side effects, and return value. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions for all three parameters. Description does not add additional semantics beyond acknowledging exact emoji match; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the action ('Remove the authenticated user's emoji reaction') and the resource ('from a ClickUp Chat message'). Differentiates from sibling tools like clickup_chat_reaction_add and clickup_chat_reaction_list.

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?

Provides explicit context: only removes own reaction, other users' reactions preserved, and is a no-op if not reacted. While no direct alternative comparison, it clearly defines when and what the tool does.

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

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

States ordering and basic output, but with no annotations, it does not disclose whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. Surficient but not thorough.

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 concise sentences with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only says 'Returns an array of reply objects' without detailing the structure of those objects. Leaves agent guessing about fields.

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 already provide clear guidance on obtaining parameter values. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what is in the 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?

Clearly defines the tool as listing threaded replies to a top-level ClickUp Chat message, with ordering (oldest first) and return type. Distinguishes from sibling clickup_chat_reply_send.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use the alternative tool (clickup_chat_reply_send) for posting. However, lacks explicit conditions for when not to use or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the reply appears in the thread panel and returns the created object, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 create tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return value, and alternative. Minor gaps like error scenarios or threading limitations are acceptable for this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, earning a baseline score.

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 'Post a threaded reply beneath an existing ClickUp Chat message,' specifying a verb and resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool clickup_chat_message_send by noting its use for new top-level messages.

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 explicitly directs when to use this tool (for threaded replies) and when to use clickup_chat_message_send (for top-level messages), providing clear context with an alternative.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'an array of user objects,' which is helpful. It does not mention any permissions or rate limits, but for a simple read operation, this is adequate. The description does not contradict any annotations (none exist).

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a returns line. It front-loads the core action ('List the users...') and provides immediate utility insight. Every sentence is necessary and earns its place.

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 tool with 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. There are no gaps or ambiguities.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself provides clear instructions (e.g., 'Obtain from clickup_chat_message_list'). The description's mention of 'Returns an array of user objects' adds some context but is not strictly necessary given the schema's completeness.

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 lists users @-mentioned in a ClickUp Chat message, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tagged users'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_chat_message_list (list messages) and clickup_member_list (list members) by its specific focus on tagged users.

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 indicates the tool is 'Useful for reading who a message was addressed to,' providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling context makes alternatives implicit. A more explicit exclusion would elevate this to a 5.

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

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

Discloses that the item starts unresolved and returns the updated checklist. With no annotations, the description covers key behavioral traits but could mention prerequisites like checklist existence or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives alternatives, third states return value. Efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, description explains return value. Distinguishes from 3 sibling checklist tools. Covers parameter sources and initial state. Could add a note on required permissions or error cases.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by specifying how to obtain assignee and checklist_id (e.g., 'Obtain from clickup_member_list'), augmenting the 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 (append a new item), the resource (existing ClickUp checklist on a task), and the initial state (starts unresolved). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by naming update and delete alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: when to use this tool (to add an item) and when to use alternatives (update for editing/resolving, delete for removal). The initial unresolved state implies post-add actions if needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the checklist starts empty and returns the created object with its id. However, it omits behavioral details like required permissions, error conditions, or side effects beyond creation, which would be expected for a mutation 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 three sentences long, each contributing essential information: creation action, emptiness and next steps, and return value. It is front-loaded and concise without any redundant text.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully states the return includes the new id. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or output structure beyond the id. For a straightforward creation tool, it is mostly adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'name' and 'task_id' already have descriptions. The description adds value by providing examples for 'name' (e.g., 'Launch prep') and sourcing guidance for 'task_id' (from clickup_task_list). This additional context justifies a slight upgrade from baseline 3.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'checklist (to-do group)' on a ClickUp task. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that the checklist starts empty and directs to clickup_checklist_add_item for adding items, making its purpose unique among the many checklist-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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use clickup_checklist_add_item to populate the checklist and notes that a task can have multiple checklists, implying no uniqueness constraint. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and what to do next.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden by stating 'permanently delete', 'destructive and irreversible', and 'returns an empty object on success', providing clear behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and scope, and the second providing alternative and return value—no wasted words.

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 delete operation with one parameter, the description covers purpose, scope, alternatives, destructiveness, and return value. No output schema needed; completeness is high.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter's own description is comprehensive, explaining where to get the checklist_id and consequences. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond that, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'entire checklist from a ClickUp task', and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clickup_checklist_delete_item by specifying scope (all items vs single item).

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 explicitly tells when to use this ('remove a single item instead, use clickup_checklist_delete_item') and flags it as destructive and irreversible, guiding appropriate usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly conveys destructive nature ('Permanently delete', 'irreversible') and states return value ('Returns the updated checklist object'). It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but for a delete tool, the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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 focused sentences: first states action and nature, second provides alternative and return info. No redundant words, highly efficient.

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 delete tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains destructive nature, alternative, and return. Could mention error handling or permissions, but given low complexity, it's adequate.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing clear meaning for both parameters (checklist_id and item_id). The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Permanently delete a single item from a ClickUp checklist', specifying the exact verb (delete), resource (checklist item), and scope (single item). It differentiates from sibling tool clickup_checklist_update_item by noting that alternative is for resolving without deleting.

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 explicitly says 'Destructive and irreversible' to warn when not to use, and provides an alternative: 'To resolve the item (mark done) without deleting, use clickup_checklist_update_item with resolved=true.' This gives clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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

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

Describes scope clearly (no effect on items). Without annotations, this is good but could mention permissions or side effects.

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-loading purpose and exclusions. No wasted words.

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, covers purpose, scope, and return. No output schema needed.

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 covers all params fully. Description adds context about what the update does and what it doesn't affect.

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?

Clearly states verb (rename/change position) and resource (checklist). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it does not affect.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use alternative tools for item operations. Also states return value.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full behavioral burden. It explains the net effect (modify fields) and return value (updated checklist object). Does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., notifications, immutability) or error cases.

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 concise sentences: first defines purpose and actions, second links to siblings and return value. No wasted words. Front-loaded with key information.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, ID sourcing, and return value. Missing advanced context like rate limits or error handling, but sufficient for a simple update tool with well-documented input schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. The description adds high-level grouping (three actions) and ID sources, but does not provide new semantic insight beyond the schema. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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 modifies a single checklist item, listing specific actions (rename, toggle resolved, change assignee). It distinguishes from sibling tools clickup_checklist_add_item and clickup_checklist_delete_item.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use (modify existing item) and mentions alternatives for create/delete. Implicitly guides on prerequisites by referencing ID sources (clickup_task_get, clickup_member_list). Lacks explicit when-not or error conditions.

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

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: @mentions are recognized, markdown is not rendered (stored as literal), and the tool returns the created comment object with its new id. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it well.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes important behavioral notes without unnecessary verbosity.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: action, mention rendering, markdown limitation, and return value including id for chaining. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are acceptable given tool complexity and parameter coverage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds only the contextual note about the returned id, but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers per parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's action: 'Post a new top-level comment on a ClickUp task.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_comment_reply and clickup_comment_update by specifying 'top-level' and noting the returned id can be used for those 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?

While not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives, the description implies that for replying (clickup_comment_reply) or updating (clickup_comment_update), the returned id is needed. Context is clear, but no explicit when-not guidance.

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

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

States destructive and irreversible action including threaded replies, and return type. No annotations present so description carries burden.

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 concise sentences front-loading purpose and usage guidance.

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?

Covers deletion scope, irreversibility, alternative, and return format. Complete for a simple delete tool without output schema.

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 coverage 100% with detailed param description; description adds no further semantic value beyond 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?

Clearly states 'Permanently delete a ClickUp comment' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling clickup_comment_update.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use alternative (clickup_comment_update with resolved=true) and notes destructive nature.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses ordering (chronological), scope (top-level only), and return format (compact array with specific fields). This is sufficient for a read-only list operation, though pagination or error behavior is not mentioned.

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 efficiently convey purpose, ordering, sibling tool alternative, and return format. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It specifies the return fields, ordering, and boundary (top-level only), covering all necessary 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed description for task_id. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists comments on a ClickUp task in chronological order. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it returns only top-level comments and directs to clickup_comment_replies for threaded replies.

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 explicitly provides usage context: use for top-level comments, and for threaded reply chains use clickup_comment_replies. It also notes chronological ordering, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations provided; description discloses ordering (oldest first) and return structure (array with fields). Lacks mention of pagination, authentication, or rate limits, but adequate for a read operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ordering. No wasted words.

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?

Explains return type array with field names, ordering, and sibling tool. Lacks mention of pagination or limits, but for a simple list with one param, it's mostly 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?

Schema covers comment_id fully (100% coverage). Description adds context: 'Obtain from clickup_comment_list (field: id)', which helps agent source the parameter.

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?

Clearly states it lists threaded replies attached to a top-level ClickUp comment, oldest first. Distinguishes from sibling clickup_comment_reply which posts a new reply.

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?

Provides explicit alternative: 'Use clickup_comment_reply to post a new reply to the thread.' Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that replies appear indented and returns the created object with id, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects like notification behavior (though schema covers assignee notification).

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each adding essential information: action, behavior, and alternative. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose, behavior, and return value (new id). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like having a valid parent comment_id, but that is inferred from the parameter description.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Post a threaded reply'), the resource ('under an existing ClickUp comment'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clickup_comment_create by specifying that it is for replies, not top-level comments.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for threaded replies) and provides a direct alternative for a common scenario ('For a top-level comment, use clickup_comment_create instead'), guiding the agent away from misuse.

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

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: full body replacement (no partial edits), resolution effect (strikes through, closes thread), and text rendering nuances (@mentions rendered, markdown not). However, it omits side effects like notifications for assignee changes, rate limits, or permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a critical behavioral note (full replacement), and the third explains a key parameter effect and return value. Efficient and well-structured.

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 description adequately covers the tool's function and important behaviors for a 4-parameter mutation tool without output schema. It mentions return of updated object but lacks detail on the structure. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, slightly more context on permissions or error states would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that text is a full replacement and that resolved=true closes the thread. Parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., assignee notification, text rendering), making semantics clear.

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 verb 'Edit' and the resources 'text, assignee, or resolution state of a ClickUp comment on a task, list, or view'. It distinguishes from creation and deletion siblings by focusing on modification and includes critical details like full text replacement and resolution behavior.

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 use for editing an existing comment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clickup_comment_delete or clickup_comment_create. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the created page object including its id, and mentions optional parameters like team_id defaulting to config. However, it does not discuss error scenarios, required permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. First sentence states primary purpose, second adds markdown/subtitle/parent_page_id details, third describes return value and links to sibling tools. Every sentence is informative.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value and relationships to other tools. It lacks details on prerequisites or error handling, but for a create tool this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value beyond schema: explains parent_page_id creates a page tree, content omission creates empty page for later editing, name appears in navigator, team_id defaults to config. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 (create a new page), the resource (inside an existing ClickUp doc), and distinguishes from similar tools by mentioning nesting via parent_page_id and referencing sibling tools like clickup_doc_edit_page and clickup_doc_get_page.

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 explains when to use the tool (to add a page to a doc) and hints at alternatives (nesting with parent_page_id). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude creating a doc itself, which is covered by clickup_doc_create, but the purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the doc starts with no pages, which informs behavior. It also mentions the return value includes the doc id. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but overall it adequately describes the non-destructive creation behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: creation, follow-up action, and optional attachment plus return value. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return value (created doc object with id). It covers the core purpose, initial state, and optional parent placement. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but for a straightforward create tool it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context about the parent being optional and that team_id can be omitted to use default, but these nuances are already implied by the schema's optionality. It does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the 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 tool creates a ClickUp doc, specifies it starts with no pages and references the sibling tool for adding pages. It also mentions optional parent attachment, distinguishing it from other doc-related tools like clickup_doc_add_page or clickup_doc_edit_page.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (creating a new doc) and what to do next (add pages via clickup_doc_add_page). It also notes the optional parent attachment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the sibling tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explains how content modes work, that names can be changed or kept, and that IDs come from other listed tools. It lacks detail on auth or rate limits, but for an edit operation the described behavior is 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?

Four concise sentences, each serving a purpose: state primary action, explain modes, offer alternative tool, and indicate return value. No fluff, front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 no output schema, the description still mentions 'Returns the updated page object.' It covers all major behavioral aspects, parameter sourcing, and mode variations. For a 6-param tool with 2 required, this is fully comprehensive.

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?

All 6 parameters have 100% schema description coverage. The description adds context beyond the schema by noting default behaviors (e.g., 'Omit to leave content unchanged', 'Omit to keep current title', 'Omit to use default workspace') and sourcing hints. This enriches the schema information.

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?

Description clearly states the tool renames or rewrites existing pages in ClickUp docs, differentiating from clickup_doc_add_page for new pages. The verb 'rename' and 'rewrite' plus resource 'existing page' make purpose specific.

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?

Description explains default replace behavior and mode options (append/prepend), and explicitly guides users to use clickup_doc_add_page for fresh pages. This provides clear when-to and when-not-to guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool returns only metadata and not page bodies, and says it returns the doc object. It could mention more about response shape, but for a simple fetch, this is adequate. No contradictions.

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 conveying essential information with no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second clarifies limitation and alternatives. Perfectly concise.

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 description covers purpose, limitations, and alternatives. It lists returned fields and mentions the doc object. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for a simple metadata fetch, though a few more details on response structure would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by indicating that doc_id should be obtained from clickup_doc_list and that team_id can be omitted for the default workspace. This aids correct usage beyond the 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 it fetches metadata for a single ClickUp doc, listing specific fields (name, parent, dates, type). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools that return page bodies, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states what the tool does NOT do (not return page bodies) and provides two alternative tools (clickup_doc_pages, clickup_doc_get_page) for that purpose. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states return type but does not disclose whether operation is idempotent, error handling, or access requirements. For a read operation, more behavioral context is needed.

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: purpose first, then prerequisite. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema, but description covers key return fields (content, title, subtitle, parent-page link). Lacks details on error conditions or response format, but sufficient for a straightforward fetch operation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema; mentions 'parent-page link' but that is a return field, not parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Fetch a single page from a ClickUp doc' with details on included content (markdown, title, subtitle, parent-page link). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like clickup_doc_pages and clickup_doc_get.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: 'Use clickup_doc_pages to list all pages in a doc first.' Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but clear context for correct usage.

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

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

Describes return format (compact array of doc objects with specific fields) and pagination (v3 cursor pagination). No annotations provided, so description carries the burden; it adequately discloses read-only nature and pagination behavior.

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?

Three concise sentences covering purpose, distinction from tasks, return format, alternatives, and pagination. Each sentence adds value, no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description includes return fields. For a simple list tool, it covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, pagination, and differentiation from siblings.

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?

Only one optional parameter (team_id) with 100% schema description coverage. Description adds context: 'Omit to use the default workspace from config.' This goes beyond the schema's base description, adding practical guidance.

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 lists all ClickUp docs in a workspace, distinguishes docs from tasks, and mentions nested pages. It also differentiates from sibling tools clickup_doc_get and clickup_doc_pages.

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?

Provides clear usage context: lists docs in a workspace. Mentions alternatives for single doc (clickup_doc_get) and doc pages (clickup_doc_pages). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but covers main scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of page objects with specific fields (id, name, sub_title, parent_page_id, optionally content) and that pages are ordered by tree position. It does not mention rate limits, permissions, or what happens on invalid doc_id, but the core behavior is well described.

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 three tightly worded sentences. The first states the purpose, the second lists return fields, and the third adds ordering detail. No superfluous information.

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 list tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return format and ordering. However, it lacks details on pagination (if applicable) and error handling. Considering the tool's simplicity, this is mostly 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, and the tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It indirectly references the content parameter by mentioning 'optionally content' in the return format, but does not provide new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'pages inside a ClickUp doc'. It also mentions including nested subpages, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like clickup_doc_get_page (single page) or clickup_doc_get (the doc itself).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with sibling tools such as clickup_doc_get_page, clickup_doc_add_page, or clickup_doc_edit_page.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an array of custom field definitions with specific details (field id, name, type, and option values for drop_down/labels). Implicitly read-only, but not explicitly stated. Adequate for a list operation.

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 packed with useful information. First sentence enumerates returned fields, second sentence gives usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 list tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, input, and output details. No output schema, but description explains return shape sufficiently.

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 description coverage is 100%, already explaining list_id as the list ID and how to obtain it. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 lists custom field definitions on a ClickUp list, specifying exact fields returned (id, name, type, etc.) and extraction of option values from type_config.options. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like clickup_field_set and clickup_field_unset.

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?

Explicitly advises using this before clickup_field_set to learn field_id, option ids, and value shape. Also mentions obtaining list_id from clickup_list_list. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

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

Discloses that the value's JSON shape must match the field type and provides examples. Returns empty object on success. Lacks mention of error conditions or authentication, but overall adequately transparent for a mutation 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Front-loads purpose, then provides essential type guidance and related tool references.

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 field-set tool, the description covers the main points: purpose, value constraints, prerequisite tool, and success return. Could mention that the operation overwrites existing values, but that's implied. Still nearly 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool's description reinforces the value type requirements but adds minimal new information beyond the schema's own examples and instructions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets or overwrites a custom field value on a ClickUp task. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clickup_field_list (to inspect) and clickup_field_unset (to clear).

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?

Explicitly instructs to use clickup_field_list first to determine field type and option ids, and points to clickup_field_unset for clearing values. This gives clear context for when and how to use the tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It explains that the field definition remains intact and returns an empty object on success, covering key behavioral aspects. Could elaborate on permissions or edge cases, but is adequate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with purpose and effect, and includes guidance on alternatives and return value. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers the action, effect on field definition, return value, and provides a usage hint. It is complete for a simple clear operation, though it could mention permissions or preconditions.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clears a custom field value on a ClickUp task, using the specific verb 'clear' and resource 'custom field value on a task'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clickup_field_set.

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 explicitly says 'Use clickup_field_set to assign a new value instead', providing a clear alternative and indicating when to use this tool (clearing) versus setting a value.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly indicates that the tool creates a folder and returns the created object including its id. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., duplicate name, non-existent space).

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 two sentences long with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with useful context. While concise, it could benefit from slight restructuring (e.g., separating the usage note), but it is efficient and clear.

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 that this is a simple create tool with only two parameters, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the return value (folder object with id), and provides a usage hint. It lacks details on error handling or response structure, but the absence of a output schema is partially mitigated by mentioning the return of the id.

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 provides clear descriptions for both parameters (name and space_id), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the role of folders (group lists, start empty) and how to use the returned folder_id with clickup_list_create, which goes beyond the 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 (create), the resource (folder), and the context (inside a ClickUp space). It also specifies that folders start empty and that lists can be added later via another tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clickup_folder_list or clickup_folder_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 provides guidance on how to use the tool after creation (adding lists via clickup_list_create) and implies the folder's role as a container. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention prerequisites like the need for a valid space_id, though the schema provides that context.

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

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses the destructive, irreversible, and cascading behavior. It also indicates the return value (empty object). No contradictions present.

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?

Three concise sentences with no wasted words. Key information (destructive, irreversible, alternative) is front-loaded, and the return type is mentioned at the end.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, user confirmation requirement, alternative approach, and return value. Adequate given no output schema or additional complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes folder_id's purpose and source (from folder_list) and cascading effect. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond reinforcing the destructive nature.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool permanently deletes a folder and all its contents (lists and tasks). It clearly distinguishes from archival by mentioning clickup_space_update with archived=true, avoiding confusion with sibling 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?

Explicitly advises confirming with the user before calling due to destructive nature. Provides a clear alternative (archival via clickup_space_update) with explanation of reversibility, guiding correct tool selection.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that task_count is a string 'per API', which is a notable behavioral detail not in the schema. It also clarifies that it returns the folder object with child lists. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any authentication requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and return details, and includes a concise alternative usage. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and provides an alternative for a related task. It could be slightly improved by noting that it returns a single folder object with nested lists, but overall it is clear and sufficient for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for folder_id. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (ID of the folder to fetch). The mention of 'Obtain from clickup_folder_list' is already in the schema. Hence, no extra value is added for the parameter.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full object for a single ClickUp folder' and enumerates specific fields (name, task_count, archived status, child lists). It distinguishes itself from siblings like clickup_folder_list (which lists folders) and clickup_list_list (which lists lists).

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 directly provides an alternative tool usage: 'Use clickup_list_list with folder_id to get just the lists.' This instructs the agent when to choose a different tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or broader context like whether it works for archived folders.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format as 'a compact array of folder objects (id, name, task_count, archived)', which is transparent for a read operation. It does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the context implies it. The description could mention that no side effects occur, but the provided details are adequate.

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 cover purpose, context, alternative, and return format. No unnecessary words. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and uses the second sentence for differentiation. Extremely concise and structured.

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?

With two parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description provides sufficient context. It covers what the tool does, when to use alternatives, how to get required IDs, and what the output looks like. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%; both parameters are already well-described in the schema. The description adds value by telling the user to obtain space_id from clickup_space_list, which goes beyond the schema. This extra guidance improves parameter semantics.

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?

Description starts with 'List all folders in a ClickUp space', clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from clickup_list_list by noting that spaces may have folderless lists and directing users to that tool for those. This differentiates it from a sibling tool.

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 explicitly says 'Folders are optional groupings that contain lists; a space may also have folderless lists (use clickup_list_list with space_id for those).' This tells when to use this tool and when to use the alternative, providing clear context and conditions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that only rename is possible and returns the updated folder object, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, side effects, or error conditions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by important limitation and output information. No wasted words.

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 rename tool, the description adequately covers purpose, limitation, and return value. Lacks error scenarios but is sufficient given the tool's simplicity and no output schema requirement.

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 coverage is 100%, and description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. It repeats the overall action but no extra meaning.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'rename' and the resource 'ClickUp folder', and distinguishes this from moving a folder by specifying that only the display name can be changed. Differentiates from sibling tools like clickup_folder_create and clickup_folder_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?

Explicitly states when to use (rename) and when not to (to move to a different space, delete and recreate). Provides an alternative approach via sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that KRs drive the goal's percent-complete via averaging, and explains how progress is derived for automatic vs manual KRs. It mentions return of created object. While it could mention the need for goal_id validity, the transparency is good.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. It efficiently covers the KR concept, behavior for different types, and links to related tools. No wasted words, ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description mentions 'Returns the created key result object', which is sufficient. It covers all relevant aspects: how KRs work, type-specific behavior, and a brief on how to update manual KRs. The tool has moderate complexity, and the description handles it completely.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'type' and other parameters (e.g., list_ids/task_ids only for automatic, steps_end for percentage/boolean). This contextual guidance enhances parameter understanding beyond the 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 tool adds a key result to a ClickUp goal, explains what a KR is ('sub-target'), and how it affects goal progress. It differentiates from the sibling tool clickup_goal_update_kr by mentioning it for reporting progress on certain KR types, making purpose distinct.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use 'automatic' KRs (linked tasks/lists) vs other types, and directs agents to clickup_goal_update_kr for reporting progress on number/currency/percentage KRs. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but covers key usage scenarios.

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

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

In the absence of annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the goal starts empty, percent-complete is auto-calculated from key results, and it returns the created object with its id. It does not discuss permissions or default field values, but covers core behavioral traits.

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 consists of three concise, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining follow-up and auto-calculation, and describing the return value. No unnecessary words, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value and auto-calculation behavior. It also references the relevant sibling tool for the next step. This is comprehensive enough for an agent to understand usage without missing critical 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 100% parameter coverage with clear descriptions. The tool description adds limited additional parameter context beyond noting that team_id can be omitted; it does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Following the rubric, baseline score is 3.

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 it creates a new OKR-style goal in a workspace, specifies it starts with zero key results, and references the sibling tool clickup_goal_add_kr for adding them, effectively distinguishing the tool's purpose from 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?

The description implicitly tells when to use this tool (to create a goal) and directs to clickup_goal_add_kr for adding key results, providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly list scenarios for avoidance, but the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly states the irreversible, cascading nature, loss of historical progress data, and the return value ('empty object on success').

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no wasted words: purpose, warning, and return value. Every sentence adds critical context.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete—it covers action, consequences, parameter acquisition, and return 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by telling the agent how to obtain the goal_id ('from clickup_goal_list (field: id) or clickup_goal_get').

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 ('permanently delete') and the resource ('ClickUp goal along with all its key results'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_goal_delete_kr and clickup_goal_update.

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?

It explicitly warns the agent to 'confirm with the user before calling' due to destructiveness, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is 'destructive and irreversible,' explains that historical progress is lost, and that the goal's completion percentage is recalculated. This is beyond a simple 'delete' and adds valuable context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds unique information: what it does, the consequences, and the return value. No extra words.

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 delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, behavioral consequences, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has one parameter (kr_id) with a description that already explains how to obtain the value. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds only marginal value by relating the parameter's consequences on the goal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Permanently delete a single key result from a ClickUp goal' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (key result). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_goal_delete (deletes entire goal) and clickup_goal_update_kr (updates key result).

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?

While the description implicitly indicates when to use the tool (when needing to delete a key result), it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide usage guidance such as when not to use it or prerequisites. No siblings are named for direct comparison.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a goal object with key_results array, implying it's a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, no state changes, or potential errors beyond the permission note in the parameter description.

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 two sentences long, each serving a purpose: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second confirms the return structure. No unnecessary words.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects or enums), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what action is performed, what data is returned, and how to get the input parameter.

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 single parameter goal_id is fully described in the schema. The description adds context: how to obtain it (from clickup_goal_list) and access requirements, which is valuable beyond the schema definition.

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 'Fetch a single ClickUp goal' and lists the data it returns (key results, owners, due date, percent-complete). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like clickup_goal_list (which lists many goals) and clickup_goal_update (which modifies).

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: when you need detailed information about a specific goal. It also hints at where to get the goal_id (from clickup_goal_list). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond that.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format as a compact array of objects, implying a read-only operation. However, it lacks details on potential pagination, rate limits, ordering, or error conditions beyond what is implied by listing. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, context about goals, return format, and an alternative. No unnecessary words or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, return format, and an alternative. It could mention potential pagination or ordering, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema already describes the team_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining how to obtain the team_id from another tool (clickup_workspace_list) and the optional default behavior. This provides actionable guidance beyond the schema definitions.

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 lists all ClickUp goals in a workspace, describes their OKR-style nature, specifies the return array fields (id, name, percent_completed, due_date), and differentiates from the sibling tool clickup_goal_get which returns full goal details including key results.

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 provides a clear alternative by directing users to clickup_goal_get for full goal details, and explains when to omit the team_id parameter to use the default workspace. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios where this tool should not be used or mention prerequisites.

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