clickup_acl_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation action, Enterprise plan requirement, and return of the updated object. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., impact on child objects, member visibility changes) or reversibility, which are relevant for an ACL change.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers object types, endpoint, plan requirement, and return value. No redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description mentions the return of the updated object, which is helpful. It lacks error scenarios or deeper ACL details, but for a focused tool, it is mostly complete. The Enterprise plan note is a critical prerequisite.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of 'private' (true = private, false = public) and noting that 'team_id' can be omitted to use the default workspace. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond 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 states the action: 'Change the privacy (ACL) of a ClickUp hierarchy object' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_space_update by focusing exclusively on privacy toggling (private/public). The mention of 'space/folder/list' and the v3 ACL endpoint provides precise scope.

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 for when to use the tool: changing privacy of hierarchy objects. It notes the Enterprise plan requirement and references list endpoints for obtaining IDs. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison with alternative update tools.

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