clickup_doc_edit_page

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 the mutation behavior ('replaces the current page body entirely'), specifies the return value ('Returns the updated page object'), and clarifies the replacement vs. append semantics. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid core behavioral information.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important behavioral details, usage guidance, and return information. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste - three sentences that efficiently communicate everything needed.

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 an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, behavioral characteristics (replace vs append), sibling differentiation, and return value. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication requirements, but provides sufficient information for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'content' and 'name' parameters implicitly but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. 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 ('Rename or rewrite') and resource ('an existing page inside a ClickUp doc'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'clickup_doc_add_page' for fresh pages. It explicitly mentions what gets modified (page title and body).

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 ('For a fresh page use clickup_doc_add_page instead') and clarifies the behavioral context ('The supplied content replaces the current page body entirely (not an append)'). This gives clear alternatives and operational boundaries.

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