clickup_group_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: 'All changes are applied in one call' (atomic operation), 'Returns the updated group object' (output format), and implies mutation (update). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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: three sentences that each earn their place. First states purpose, second gives behavioral context, third provides usage guideline and output information. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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 explaining the atomic nature of changes, suggesting a prerequisite action, and stating the return value. It could improve by mentioning authentication requirements or error scenarios, but covers the essential context given the complexity.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Omit to keep current name' is already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 actions: 'Rename a user group and/or add/remove its members.' It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_group_create, clickup_group_delete, and clickup_group_list by specifying it's for updating existing groups rather than creating, deleting, or listing them.

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 it: 'Use clickup_group_list first to see current membership.' This gives a prerequisite action. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like clickup_group_create for new groups, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.

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