clickup_goal_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes several behavioral traits: that goals start with zero key results, that percent-complete is auto-calculated from key results, and that it returns the created goal object with its new ID. It doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial behavioral context for a creation 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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: the creation action, the key results behavior, and the return value. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words while conveying essential 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the creation process, the initial state (zero key results), the auto-calculation behavior, and the return format. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error scenarios, but given the schema's 100% coverage and the clear behavioral description, it's mostly 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions key results conceptually but doesn't relate this to any parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new OKR-style goal'), resource ('in a workspace'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning that key results must be added separately via clickup_goal_add_kr. It goes beyond just restating the name by explaining the OKR-style nature and zero initial 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 clear context about when to use this tool (to create goals) and explicitly mentions the follow-up action needed (adding key results via clickup_goal_add_kr). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as clickup_goal_update or clickup_goal_delete.

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