clickup_remove_task_from_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: the ClickApp feature gate and the home-list restriction. It says nothing about permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens if the task isn't in that list — meaningful gaps for an unannotated mutation tool. Note the home-list caveat is also already duplicated in the list_id/task_id schema descriptions.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the operation and its hard constraint, with zero redundant phrasing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the two gotchas an agent most needs (feature gate, home-list restriction) and the schema completes parameter documentation. The remaining omission is failure-mode behavior, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 all three parameters are already documented with guidance (including the clickup_get_list pointer for list IDs and the custom-ID support for task_id). The description adds only the conceptual framing of 'additional list', which is baseline-level value 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Remove a task from an additional list') and immediately bounds scope with the home-list exclusion, which distinguishes it from clickup_add_task_to_list and clickup_move_task. It doesn't name the sibling that performs the inverse operation, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires the Tasks in Multiple Lists ClickApp to be enabled') and an explicit when-not ('cannot remove from home list'). No alternative tool is named for the home-list case, leaving the agent to guess whether clickup_move_task or clickup_update_task is the fallback.

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