clickup_chat_dm

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a write operation (sending a message), automatically creates a DM channel if needed, and returns the created message object. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional behavioral details and usage guidance in the second. Both sentences are necessary and contribute value without any wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and no output schema or annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, behavior, and usage. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, potential errors, or response structure, which are gaps for a tool without annotations.

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 input schema already fully documents the parameters (content, team_id, user_id). The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, meeting the baseline 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 ('Send a direct message'), the resource ('from the authenticated user to another workspace member'), and distinguishes it from its sibling clickup_chat_message_send by specifying this is for direct messages versus channel messages. It's precise and avoids tautology.

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 provides when to use this tool ('Send a direct message') and when to use an alternative ('Use clickup_chat_message_send for channel messages'), offering clear guidance on tool selection based on the message type (DM vs. channel).

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