clickup_view_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an empty view with default filters (behavioral constraint) and returns the created view object (output behavior). However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or whether this is a destructive operation (though 'create' implies addition, not destruction).

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second adds behavioral context about default filters and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information 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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the creation behavior, default state, and return value. However, it could be more complete by mentioning permission requirements or potential error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps compensate for some 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 documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'saved view (board, list, calendar, timeline, etc.)' which relates to the 'type' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 action ('Create a new saved view'), resource ('attached to a space, folder, list, or the workspace'), and scope ('board, list, calendar, timeline, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_view_update (modify) and clickup_view_delete (remove) by specifying creation of a new view.

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 it ('attached to a space, folder, list, or the workspace') and mentions customization limitations ('customise filters/grouping/sort later via the web UI'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like clickup_view_update for modifying existing views.

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