clickup_task_create

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 does well by specifying the default behavior ('starts in the list's default status unless 'status' is supplied') and the return value ('Returns the created task object including its new id'). It also implies this is a write operation through the word 'Create,' though it doesn't mention permission requirements or rate limits.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details and usage context. Both sentences earn their place - the first defines the tool, the second provides critical information about defaults and return values. Zero wasted words.

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 default status behavior and return value format. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error conditions, but given the schema's excellent coverage and the description's behavioral details, it's mostly adequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it only mentions the 'status' parameter behavior. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Create a new task') and resource ('in a ClickUp list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_task_update or clickup_task_get. It explicitly identifies this as a creation operation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Create a new task') and mentions related tools for follow-up operations ('clickup_task_update, clickup_task_get, etc.'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for similar creation operations in other contexts.

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