clickup_comment_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the entire comment body is replaced (no partial edits), marking resolved=true strikes through and closes the thread, and it returns the updated comment object. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, which are important 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, followed by specific behavioral details and return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 a good job covering key behaviors like full text replacement and resolution effects. It mentions the return object but lacks details on format or error handling. Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but could improve by addressing permissions or edge cases.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning that text replacement is complete and resolved=true strikes through the comment, but these details are largely redundant with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 action ('Edit'), the target ('text, assignee, or resolution state of a ClickUp comment'), and the scope ('on a task, list, or view'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like clickup_comment_create (create), clickup_comment_delete (delete), and clickup_comment_list (list) by focusing on editing existing comments.

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 implies usage for editing comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like clickup_comment_create for new comments or clickup_comment_delete for removal. It mentions the tool's capabilities but lacks explicit guidance on scenarios or prerequisites for use.

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