clickup_goal_add_kr

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.