clickup_comment_reply

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 states the action ('Post'), outcome ('Returns the created reply object including its new id'), and visual effect ('Replies appear indented'), which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent, leaving gaps 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 context and a clear alternative in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and basic behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, authentication requirements, or response structure, which would be helpful for completeness. The high schema coverage mitigates some gaps, but behavioral aspects could be more fully described.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints for 'text' or how 'assignee' interacts with notifications). Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('under an existing ClickUp comment'), and visual outcome ('appear indented beneath the parent comment'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool clickup_comment_create by specifying 'For a top-level comment, use clickup_comment_create instead,' making the distinction clear and actionable.

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 ('Post a threaded reply under an existing ClickUp comment') and when not to ('For a top-level comment, use clickup_comment_create instead'). It names the alternative tool directly, giving the agent clear direction for choosing between sibling tools based on the context of comment hierarchy.

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