clickup_list_add_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Add'), specifies that the task remains in its original list (non-destructive addition), mentions the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'), and hints at use-case context ('shared roadmaps'). It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but provides substantial guidance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clarification of behavior and alternative tool, and ends with return value—all in three efficient sentences with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is quite complete: it explains the operation, distinguishes from siblings, provides usage context, and states the return value. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but covers the essentials well given the structured data gaps.

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 the two parameters (list_id and task_id). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Add a task to a secondary list'), distinguishes it from the sibling tool clickup_task_move by explaining multi-list membership vs. moving the home list, and clarifies the resource involved (task) and the effect (remains in original home list).

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('useful for shared roadmaps') and when not to ('To change the home list instead, use clickup_task_move'), providing clear alternatives and context for selection.

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