clickup_guest_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: that this is a mutation operation (invitation creation), that an email is sent automatically, that acceptance is required before login, and that it returns a guest object with ID. It doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if email already exists, but covers the essential workflow well given the annotation absence.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add distinct value: purpose, guest characteristics, invitation workflow, sharing alternatives, plan requirement, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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 provides good contextual completeness. It covers the purpose, workflow (invitation email, acceptance requirement), prerequisites (Enterprise plan), alternatives for sharing items, and return value. It doesn't specify error conditions or rate limits, but given the schema's 100% coverage and the clear behavioral description, it's mostly complete for agent usage.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the tool involves email invitation and returns a guest object, but these don't provide additional parameter semantics. 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 ('Invite a new external guest user') and resource ('to a ClickUp workspace by email'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_user_invite (for members) and clickup_guest_share_* tools (for sharing items after invitation). It explicitly mentions guests have limited access and don't consume paid seats, which helps differentiate from regular user invitations.

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: 'Share specific items with them via clickup_guest_share_task / _share_list / _share_folder' indicates this is for initial invitation only. It also specifies 'Requires Enterprise plan' as a prerequisite condition and mentions the guest must accept the invitation before logging in, giving clear context about the workflow.

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