clickup_webhook_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 important behavioral traits: the webhook receives POST events, includes a 'secret' for verification, returns the created webhook object, and mentions event types (tasks created, comments added, etc.). It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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: purpose statement, optional scoping note, and response details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, and key information is front-loaded about what the tool does.

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 provides good coverage of purpose, behavior, and response format. It explains what gets created, how it works, and what's returned. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites like required permissions or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions optional scoping to 'space, folder, list, or task' which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('Register an HTTPS endpoint'), resource ('ClickUp will POST events to'), and scope ('as things happen in the workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_webhook_delete, clickup_webhook_list, and clickup_webhook_update by focusing on creation.

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 for when to use this tool ('to receive events as things happen in the workspace') and mentions optional scoping to specific entities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like clickup_webhook_update for modifications.

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