clickup_goal_create

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.