clickup_merge_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does the most important part well: it discloses that source tasks are consumed (i.e., a destructive, non-trivially-reversible operation) and that destination field values win on conflict. It stops short of covering permission requirements or what happens to subtasks/comments/attachments of the consumed tasks.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the survival/consumption semantics. The final sentence about custom IDs duplicates the schema and is the one piece of low-value text.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral facts — destructive merge semantics and conflict resolution direction. Gaps remain around permissions and the shape of the result, which the agent must guess given no output schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates target-vs-source roles and the custom-ID support, but that same custom-ID note ('DEV-1234') is already in the schema for both task_id and source_task_ids, so it adds no new meaning. The workspace_id parameter is never mentioned in the description.

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?

Specific verb (merge) plus resource (tasks) plus a precise statement of the two roles: source tasks are absorbed, target survives. This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent siblings like clickup_move_task, clickup_delete_task, or clickup_update_task.

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 implies usage (consolidating duplicates, since sources are consumed) but never states when to choose merge over the obvious alternatives — move_task, add_task_link, delete_task, or update_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria.

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