clickup_list_delete

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 thoroughly describes the tool's destructive nature ('Permanently delete', 'Destructive, irreversible, and cascading'), specifies what gets destroyed ('every task inside it, plus their comments, checklists, and attachments'), and explains the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what the minimal input schema offers.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: (1) states the action and its destructive scope, (2) provides usage warnings and alternatives, (3) specifies the return value. Every sentence earns its place with critical information, and the most important warning ('Destructive, irreversible, and cascading') is 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the irreversible nature, specifies what gets destroyed, provides usage warnings and alternatives, and documents the return value. Given the high-stakes nature of this operation, the description addresses all necessary considerations for safe agent invocation.

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 only one parameter, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds meaningful context about the parameter's implications ('All tasks inside are deleted with it') and provides guidance on how to obtain the value ('Obtain from clickup_list_list'), which goes beyond the schema's documentation. This elevates the score above baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Permanently delete a ClickUp list along with every task inside it, plus their comments, checklists, and attachments' - this provides a specific verb ('delete'), resource ('ClickUp list'), and scope ('every task inside it, plus their comments, checklists, and attachments'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like clickup_list_update (rename/archive) and clickup_task_move (move tasks elsewhere).

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 ('confirm with the user before calling') and when to use alternatives ('To move tasks elsewhere first, use clickup_task_move on each, or use clickup_list_update to rename/archive instead'). It names specific sibling tools as alternatives and includes a prerequisite confirmation step.

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