clickup_acl_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Change'), mentions the API endpoint ('v3 ACL endpoint'), specifies an access requirement ('Requires Enterprise plan'), and describes the return value ('Returns the updated object'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, technical/plan details, and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, scope, technical endpoint, access requirement, and return behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or side effects, but covers the essentials well given the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Change the privacy (ACL)'), target resource ('ClickUp hierarchy object'), and scope ('make a space/folder/list private or public'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on ACL updates rather than creation, deletion, or other operations on these objects.

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 provides clear context about when to use it ('make a space/folder/list private or public') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires Enterprise plan'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools for related operations.

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