clickup_create_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds real value by clarifying that space_name or space_id is effectively required even though the schema marks only 'name' as required, but it says nothing about permissions, duplicate-name behavior, defaults for the list status, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is adequate but thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then the routing rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place to learn what comes back (e.g., the new list's ID for follow-up calls) and whether workspace_id is typically needed. Those gaps matter for a 9-parameter mutation tool, though the core routing and prerequisite information is present.

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 nine parameters thoroughly, including the space_id vs space_name tradeoff and the resolve_assignees hint. The description only restates the required/one-of pattern, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 ("Create a list in a ClickUp space") and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by scoping itself to space-level creation. An agent can tell this apart from clickup_create_list_in_folder 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ("For lists in folders, use clickup_create_list_in_folder"). It also states the required identifier pair up front, so there is no inference needed about prerequisites.

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