clickup_comment_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Post'), supports markdown and @mentions, returns a created comment object with ID, and mentions how the output can be used with other tools (clickup_comment_reply, clickup_comment_update). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational 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?

Two well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and key features. Second sentence explains the return value and how it connects to other tools. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it clearly states it's a creation tool, describes the return format (created comment object with ID), and connects to related tools. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, potential error cases, or what happens with notifications (though some of this is in parameter descriptions). Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but has 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions markdown and @mentions support for the text parameter, which is already in the schema description. No additional parameter context is provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Post a new top-level comment'), target resource ('on a ClickUp task'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for top-level comments (not replies, which would use clickup_comment_reply). It also mentions markdown and @mentions support, adding useful detail.

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 about when to use this tool (for top-level comments) and implicitly distinguishes it from clickup_comment_reply for replies. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like clickup_comment_update for editing existing comments, though the sibling list shows many comment-related tools.

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