clickup_goal_update_kr

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing that this is a mutation operation ('Update'), specifies the return value ('Returns the updated key result object'), and reveals important behavioral details like automatic goal percentage recalculation. It doesn't mention permission requirements or rate limits, but provides substantial operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by specific use cases, behavioral consequence, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 the tool does, when to use it, behavioral consequences, and return value. The main gap is the lack of information about error conditions, authentication requirements, or what specific fields the returned object contains, which would be helpful given the absence of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions. It mentions the three update operations (progress, rename, unit adjustment) which correspond to parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or constraints.

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 ('Update a key result'), the resource ('on a ClickUp goal'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for key results rather than goals themselves. It explicitly mentions three use cases (record progress, rename, adjust unit label) that differentiate it from other goal-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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('to record current progress, rename, or adjust the unit label') and mentions the automatic recalculation of goal completion percentage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like clickup_goal_update for goal-level changes).

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