clickup_add_task_to_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it discloses the two behaviors that matter most: the task stays in its original list (non-destructive additive mutation) and the operation is gated on a workspace-level feature flag. It does not say what failure looks like when the ClickApp is disabled or what the response returns, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The distinguishing semantic (additive, keeps home list) is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite, so an agent reading only the first clause already has the key fact.

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 three-parameter additive mutation with fully documented params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and prerequisite — enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is post-call behavior (error when the ClickApp is missing, what is returned), which is minor but not covered anywhere else since annotations are absent.

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%, including how to obtain list_id and task_id (clickup_get_list, clickup_search) and the workspace_id multi-workspace caveat, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's only added signal is the word "additional," which reinforces list_id's meaning but adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a task to an additional list") and immediately disambiguates the most likely confusion by noting it "keeps current home list" — i.e., this is additive, not a move. An agent can distinguish it from clickup_move_task and clickup_remove_task_from_list without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical clarifies the additive use case and the second sentence gives a hard prerequisite (Tasks in Multiple Lists ClickApp enabled), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative explicitly ("use clickup_move_task to relocate a task") or stating what to do when the ClickApp is off, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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