clickup_create_task_comment

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 discloses deprecation status and that the tool is retained for stale listings, but it does not describe what happens when called, such as notification behavior, permissions, or whether it still creates comments exactly as before.

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 tightly written sentences with the deprecation warning front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by either flagging deprecation or directing to the replacement.

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 deprecated alias, the description gives enough context to route correctly: it identifies itself as legacy and names the replacement. It leaves minor behavioral gaps around comment creation side effects, but the schema fully covers the parameters and the main purpose is migration guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds only a migration note that the replacement uses entity_id instead of task_id, which is useful but does not add meaning for the other parameters such as assignee or notify_all.

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 ('creating a task comment') and explicitly identifies itself as a legacy alias for clickup_create_comment. An agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs from the replacement.

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 says to prefer the replacement tool and explains that this legacy name is only kept for clients with stale tool listings. It names the alternative and the condition under which this tool should not be chosen.

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