clickup_chat_dm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is idempotent (create or fetch), that channels are grouped by participant set, and that it returns the channel object with its id. This provides good behavioral insight, though it omits details like permission requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: three sentences total. The first sentence defines the action, the second explains group behavior and return value, and the third provides a follow-up action. No filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the input parameters (team_id and user_ids) with guidance on obtaining them, mentions the participant limit, and specifies the return value (channel object with id). It lacks details about error handling or default behavior when the workspace is omitted, but overall it covers the essential context.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds a useful constraint for user_ids: 'ClickUp permits up to 15 participants for a group DM'. This enriches the semantics marginally, but since the schema already explains parameter sources, the contribution is limited.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create or fetch the direct-message channel between the authenticated user and one or more other workspace members'. It specifies that it handles DMs (direct messages) and group DMs, distinguishing it from other channel tools like clickup_chat_channel_create which likely deals with non-DM channels.

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 usage context: it creates or fetches a DM channel. It also advises following up with clickup_chat_message_send using the returned channel id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like clickup_chat_channel_create for non-DM channels.

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