clickup_goal_add_kr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining that KRs drive goal percent-complete through averaging, describes the two main KR types (automatic vs manual), and mentions the return value ('Returns the created key result object'). However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions, rate limits, or 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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the purpose, second explains KR types and their usage, third specifies the return value. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and key 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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the KR system, different types, and when to use alternatives. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error handling, but covers the essential context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about KR types and their implications, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets 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 ('Add a new key result'), identifies the resource ('to a ClickUp goal'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining the purpose of KRs in driving goal progress. It explicitly mentions the sibling tool 'clickup_goal_update_kr' for updating progress on certain KR types.

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 this tool vs alternatives: it specifies that for 'automatic' KRs, you link tasks/lists, while for number/currency/percentage KRs, you should use 'clickup_goal_update_kr' to report progress. This clearly differentiates usage scenarios and directs to the appropriate sibling tool.

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