clickup_guest_share_list

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: it discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Grant...access'), specifies plan requirements ('Requires Enterprise plan'), describes the return value ('Returns the updated guest object'), and explains the guest user context ('Guests are external collaborators'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 distinct purposes: action definition, guest context, revocation alternative, and requirements/return. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 context: it explains the operation's purpose, guest user definition, plan requirements, and return value. It doesn't describe error cases or provide examples, but covers the essential context needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 ('a specific list'), and target user ('ClickUp guest user') with the verb+resource+target structure. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning the complementary tool 'clickup_guest_unshare_list' for revocation, showing clear differentiation.

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 usage guidance: it defines when to use ('Grant a ClickUp guest user access'), mentions prerequisites ('Requires Enterprise plan'), and gives a clear alternative for the opposite action ('To revoke access later use clickup_guest_unshare_list'). This covers both when-to-use and when-not-to-use scenarios.

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