channels_members

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral aspects. It lists the actions (list, followers, add, remove) but does not explain side effects, permissions required, or return formats. For add/remove, it implies mutation but does not clarify whether changes are reversible or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a multi-action tool.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and resource, the second lists the actions. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a high score.

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 multiple actions and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what each action returns, what 'followers' means, or any prerequisites. An agent would struggle to know what to expect after calling 'add' or 'remove'. The description is not complete enough for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the action enum values (list, followers, add, remove) in prose, but this duplicates schema information and adds no extra meaning for user_id or channel_id. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool manages members of a ClickUp chat channel and enumerates the specific actions (list, followers, add, remove). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like channels_messages or tasks_members_list. However, the verb 'manage' is somewhat generic, and the description could be more specific about the resource being channel members rather than just 'members'.

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 for ClickUp chat channel member operations but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but it falls short of the level of guidance seen in tools that name alternatives.

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