clickup_goal_delete_kr

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 excellently describes the destructive nature ('permanently delete', 'destructive and irreversible'), side effects ('historical progress is lost', 'goal's overall completion percentage is recalculated'), and return value ('returns an empty object on success'). This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what any schema could convey.

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 structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by critical behavioral warnings, then the return value. Every sentence earns its place with essential information. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers the action, consequences, return value, and critical warnings. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description fully compensates with comprehensive context that enables safe and informed usage.

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%, with the single parameter 'kr_id' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('permanently delete'), the resource ('a single key result from a ClickUp goal'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'clickup_goal_delete' (which deletes entire goals) and 'clickup_goal_update_kr' (which modifies key results). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 ('permanently delete a single key result') and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like updating or adding key results. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. deleting entire goals). The guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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