clickup_guest_remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the operation is 'destructive and irreversible', explains the consequences ('All share-records for the guest are deleted'), mentions the plan requirement ('Requires Enterprise plan'), and describes the return value ('Returns an empty object on success').

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 serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining consequences, warning about irreversibility with alternative, and noting requirements and return value. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information ('Permanently revoke...') is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the action, consequences, irreversibility, prerequisites (Enterprise plan), alternative tool for re-inviting, and return value. This gives the agent sufficient information to use the tool appropriately despite the lack of structured metadata.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('permanently revoke a guest user's access'), the resource ('ClickUp workspace'), and distinguishes it from siblings like clickup_guest_invite and clickup_guest_update. It explicitly mentions what happens ('All share-records for the guest are deleted and they can no longer log in').

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 ('to re-invite, use clickup_guest_invite'), when not to use it ('Destructive and irreversible'), and mentions prerequisites ('Requires Enterprise plan'). It clearly differentiates from alternatives like clickup_guest_invite for re-inviting.

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