views

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, but it only lists operation names; 'delete' implies destruction, yet nothing explains irreversible changes, permission requirements, sharing side effects, or return/get behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it omits consequences.

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 and no filler; the first sentence states the resource, the second lists operations. It is tight, though the operation list duplicates the action enum in the schema, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 an 18-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema, the description is sparse: it doesn't explain which parameters each action requires or show examples. However, the schema's per-parameter descriptions cover all parameters with action-specific hints, making the pair reasonably complete but not fully integrated.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but schema coverage is 100% and includes action-specific notes (e.g., 'View name (create, update, duplicate)'), filters example/operators, and enums for sharing_action/sort_direction/group_direction. Therefore baseline 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?

States 'Manage ClickUp views and view configurations' and enumerates all supported actions (list/create/get/update/delete, set_filters, etc.), clearly distinguishing it from sibling comments tools like views_comments_list/create by focusing on view CRUD and configuration.

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 phrase 'Use action to...' gives an imperative usage pattern, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements or alternatives. The boundary with views_comments_* tools is implied only by not listing comment operations in the action enum.

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