channels_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists actions without explaining side effects (e.g., deletion permanence, permission requirements, or whether 'unread' lists or marks messages). No information about return values or pagination behavior is given either.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the tool's purpose and actions. It is concise and front-loaded, though the enumeration of actions becomes somewhat listy. It avoids unnecessary filler and is appropriately sized.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, 12 actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only states action names without providing essential context like the workspace_id requirement for search, the ambiguity of 'unread' (count vs mark), or how responses are structured. It falls short of the burden placed on it.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, merely listing actions. It does not clarify parameter-action dependencies that aren't already in the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('messages in a ClickUp chat channel') and the available actions (list, send, update, delete, replies, reactions, tagged users, unread, search). This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like tasks_comments or comments_replies_create, which operate on non-chat comments.

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 resource context is clear (chat channel messages), implying when this tool should be used. However, there is no explicit "use this instead of X" or when-not-to-use guidance, especially in contrast to comment-related tools, so it remains implied rather than directly stated.

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