clickup_goal_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: destructive, irreversible, cascading (deletes key results), loss of historical progress data, and returns an empty object on success. This covers safety, side effects, and output expectations comprehensively.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and scope, second gives critical warnings and usage guidance, third specifies output. Each sentence earns its place by adding essential information, and it's front-loaded with the most important details (destructive nature).

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's complexity (destructive deletion with cascading effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral risks, usage prerequisites (confirmation), parameter context, and return value, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate safely.

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 the goal_id parameter. The description adds value by emphasizing the cascading deletion of key results, which reinforces the parameter's impact, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline is 3, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a ClickUp goal along with all its key results'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_goal_update or clickup_goal_get. It specifies the destructive nature, which sets it apart from read-only or update operations.

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?

Explicitly states 'confirm with the user before calling' and mentions the irreversible, cascading effects, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also implies alternatives by referencing sibling tools (clickup_goal_list, clickup_goal_get) for obtaining the goal_id, though it doesn't name specific non-destructive alternatives.

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