clickup_chat_message_update

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 behavioral traits: authorization requirements (author or admin only, 403 error for others), mutation behavior (replaces existing body entirely), and return value (updated message object). This covers most critical aspects 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second covers authorization constraints, third describes mutation behavior and return value. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information not obvious from the tool name or schema.

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 does well by covering purpose, authorization, mutation behavior, and return value. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., notifications to channel members) or error scenarios beyond the 403, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning that the text parameter 'replaces the existing body entirely' which is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'Overwrites the existing body entirely.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Edit the body of an existing ClickUp Chat message') and resource ('message'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_chat_message_send (create) and clickup_chat_message_delete (remove). It precisely identifies what is being modified (body) and the operation (edit/replace).

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 this tool (to edit an existing message body) and includes an important prerequisite (only author or workspace admin can edit). However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like clickup_chat_message_send for creating new messages.

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