clickup_goal_update

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 communicates that this is a mutation operation ('Modify'), specifies what gets updated (top-level fields), explains the automatic derivation of percent complete, and states the return value ('Returns the updated goal object'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines the tool's scope and boundaries, the second explains the return value. There is zero wasted language, and the most critical information appears first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining what gets modified, distinguishing it from sibling tools, and stating the return type. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects, error scenarios, or authentication requirements that would be helpful given the mutation nature of the operation.

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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the same three fields (name, description, due date) but provides no extra context about format, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 ('Modify a ClickUp goal's top-level fields') and enumerates the exact fields affected (name, description, due date). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clickup_goal_update_kr' by explaining that progress updates require a different tool.

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 this tool versus alternatives: 'To change progress, update the goal's key results instead via clickup_goal_update_kr.' This clearly delineates the boundary between modifying top-level fields versus progress-related updates.

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