clickup_create_key_result

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

Annotations indicate a mutable but non-destructive operation. The description adds context by explaining type-specific behaviors (e.g., 'automatic' requires task_ids/list_ids) and error codes (404, 400). It does not cover authorization or side effects, but the main behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: header, type explanation, usage guidance, return info, example, and error handling. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of multiple key result types and parameter dependencies, the description covers essential aspects: type semantics, when to use automatic, error conditions, and return value shape. The presence of an output schema (acknowledged but not shown) does not detract from the completeness.

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?

Although the input schema already has comprehensive descriptions (despite the 0% coverage signal), the description adds value by explaining the role of 'type' in progress tracking and the dependency of 'automatic' on task_ids/list_ids. The example further clarifies parameter usage.

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?

The description clearly states 'Add a Key Result (Target) to a Goal,' using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting that updating is handled by 'clickup_edit_key_result.'

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('Breaking a Goal down into one or more measurable targets') and when-not-to-use ('Updating an existing Key Result's progress') with an alternative tool. Error handling details further guide correct usage.

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