clickup_auth_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains what the tool does (token validation), what endpoint it uses (/user), the possible outcomes (ok:true result or various error types), and the specific error conditions (missing, malformed, expired, or revoked tokens). The only minor gap is not mentioning rate limits or other API constraints.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and how it works, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 zero-parameter authentication verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of purpose, behavior, and usage guidance. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit information about the response format beyond 'ok:true result', but given the tool's simplicity and clear error conditions, this is acceptable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately explains that this is a simple verification tool that takes no inputs, which adds meaningful context beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools that clearly explain their no-input nature.

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 ('verify that the configured ClickUp API token is valid') and the method ('by hitting the /user endpoint'). It distinguishes this tool from its sibling clickup_whoami by explaining that this tool only checks token validity while clickup_whoami also retrieves user profile information.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to verify API token validity') and when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_whoami instead to also get the authenticated user's profile'). This provides clear guidance on tool selection between these two authentication-related tools.

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