clickup_list_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a creation operation (implies mutation), specifies the return value ('Returns the created list object including its new id'), and mentions how to use the output. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose and constraints, second sentence explains the return value and its usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with critical information.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return value and its purpose. It covers key constraints (folder_id/space_id exclusivity) and references sibling tools. However, it lacks details on error conditions or authentication requirements, which would enhance completeness.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the folder_id/space_id mutual exclusivity and hinting at the output's use. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new task list'), specifies the location ('inside either a folder or a space'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning related calls like clickup_task_create. It's specific 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Exactly one of folder_id or space_id must be provided') and provides clear alternatives (folder vs. space). It also references sibling tools for obtaining IDs (clickup_folder_list, clickup_space_list) and for using the output (clickup_task_create).

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