clickup_doc_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does real work: it discloses the headless Edge runtime (no window), the NOT_LOGGED_IN failure mode with its remedy, and — critically — that 'replace' overwrites the page body while 'append' adds at the end, which is the destructive behavior an agent must know. It stops short of permissions requirements, reversibility of an overwrite, or other failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by input requirements, failure handling, and mode semantics in a compact block. Every sentence carries information, though the 'no copy/paste for the user' framing is a benefit statement rather than operational guidance and could be trimmed.

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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: inputs, the either/or between markdown and delta, overwrite semantics, auth failure handling, and even what the return value contains (per-table widths/colour read back after reload). Remaining gaps are secondary — error modes beyond NOT_LOGGED_IN and whether an overwrite can be undone.

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?

With 80% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning on top: it clarifies that markdown is the team ticket draft format, that delta is a Quill delta with 840px tables refitted to the Doc's 720px, and that mode 'replace' overwrites the body by default. Only the title fallback behavior is left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource — writing a user story into a ClickUp DOC page — plus the styling it applies (team table style, column widths, green headers) and the constraint that it writes directly rather than requiring copy/paste. A sibling exists (clickup_relogin) and the description makes clear that one is only an auth recovery path, not an alternative writer.

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?

Gives concrete input requirements (Doc page link plus EITHER markdown OR Quill delta) and names the recovery route: if NOT_LOGGED_IN is reported, call clickup_relogin. Mode semantics (replace default vs append) are also spelled out. No explicit "when not to use" guidance, but with only one sibling the routing risk is low.

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