clickup_list_remove_task

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 effectively explains the tool's effect ('The task itself is NOT deleted — it remains in its home list'), clarifies what happens on success ('Returns an empty object on success'), and distinguishes it from destructive deletion. It doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, but covers the core behavior well.

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: the first states the purpose, the second clarifies what the operation does and doesn't do, and the third specifies the return value. Every sentence adds essential information 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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, behavioral impact, and return value, while distinguishing it from alternatives. The main gap is the lack of error handling information, but given the structured coverage, this is a minor omission.

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 both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Remove a task from a secondary list') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with 'clickup_task_delete' for complete deletion and referencing 'clickup_list_add_task' for the complementary operation. It precisely defines what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 ('Remove a task from a secondary list it was added to via clickup_list_add_task') and when not to use it ('The task itself is NOT deleted — it remains in its home list... Use clickup_task_delete to remove the task entirely'). It names the alternative tool directly, offering clear decision criteria.

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