clickup_goal_update_kr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the goal's completion percentage auto-recalculates and returns the updated object, but lacks details on reversibility, permissions, or error states. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences well-structured: first sentence states purpose and typical uses, second sentence covers side effect and return value. No extraneous information, efficiently front-loaded.

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 simple update tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality, side effects, and return value. It lacks mention of prerequisites or error handling, but is sufficient given the tool's straightforward nature.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds context about typical uses (progress, rename, unit) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates a key result on a ClickUp goal, with typical use cases like recording progress, renaming, or adjusting unit label. It is distinct from siblings like add/delete KR by specifying 'update'.

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 implies when to use it (updating existing KRs) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like clickup_goal_add_kr or clickup_goal_delete_kr. It provides enough context for an agent to infer usage, though explicit alternatives are missing.

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