clickup_chat_reply_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Post'), outcome ('Returns the created reply object'), and placement ('appears in the message's thread panel'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the parent message doesn't exist. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: first states the action and placement, second specifies the return value, third provides sibling differentiation. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) 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 this is a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context. While it clearly states purpose and sibling differentiation, it lacks information about authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what the 'created reply object' contains. For a tool that creates data in a system, this leaves important gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the general action but provides no additional syntax, format, or constraint details about the parameters. This meets the baseline expectation 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 ('Post a threaded reply'), target resource ('beneath an existing ClickUp Chat message'), and outcome ('appears in the message's thread panel'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'clickup_chat_message_send' by specifying that tool is for 'new top-level messages' while this one is for threaded replies.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use clickup_chat_message_send for new top-level messages.' This creates a clear boundary between sibling tools and tells the agent precisely when this specific tool is appropriate versus when to choose the alternative.

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