clickup_guest_share_folder

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 action ('Grant...access'), the scope of access ('entire folder — including all its lists and tasks'), the return value ('Returns the updated guest object'), and a system requirement ('Requires Enterprise plan'). It doesn't mention potential side effects like notifications or audit trails, but covers the essential behavior well.

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 in the first sentence, followed by usage alternatives, prerequisites, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and return value. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention about what happens to existing permissions or whether this operation is idempotent, but overall it provides substantial context for effective tool use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, such as explaining relationships between parameters or providing additional context about their usage. The baseline score 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 ('Grant...access'), resource ('entire folder — including all its lists and tasks'), and scope ('at a specified permission level'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its narrower-scope siblings (clickup_guest_share_list, _share_task) and the revoking tool (clickup_guest_unshare_folder).

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 versus alternatives ('Use clickup_guest_share_list or _share_task for narrower scope. Use clickup_guest_unshare_folder to revoke'), and includes a prerequisite ('Requires Enterprise plan'). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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