clickup_edit_key_result

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context by explaining the relationship between steps_current and the range from create_key_result, noting the return is a confirmation string, and covering error handling for 404 and 400 statuses. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then provides usage guidance, return info, an example, and error handling. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the front-loading allows 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 tool has an output schema (not shown but noted) and moderate complexity, the description covers return value (confirmation string), error conditions (404, 400), and example usage. It adequately equips an agent to use the tool correctly without requiring additional external knowledge.

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?

The input schema includes descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of steps_current (relationship to the created key result's range) and note (attaching a progress comment), which goes beyond the schema's descriptions. The error handling also gives context for parameter validity (steps_current out of range). Therefore, score 4.

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 it updates a Key Result's progress, note, name, owners, or task/list links, using the verb 'Update' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_create_key_result by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, naming alternative tools (clickup_create_key_result, clickup_update_goal) and specifying the context for usage: logging progress on a manual Key Result. This provides clear guidance for selecting the correct tool.

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