clickup_guest_share_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that subtasks and parent list are not shared, and that it returns the updated guest object. It also reveals the Enterprise plan requirement. Missing details like whether it modifies existing permissions or error states, but the core behavior is well explained.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence defines action and scope, second gives revocation alternative, third states requirement and return. Every sentence is essential and well-structured.

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?

No annotations or output schema, yet the description covers purpose, scope, counterpart tool, plan requirement, and return type. It lacks discussion of error conditions or permission prerequisites, but is sufficient for a focused sharing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by hinting at source tools for guest_id and task_id, but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The permission values are clearly listed in the schema itself.

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 action (grant access), resource (guest to a single task), and scope (not subtasks/list). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_guest_share_folder by emphasizing the strict task-level sharing.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context and mentions the opposite tool (clickup_guest_unshare_task) for revocation. Also notes the Enterprise plan requirement. Could be improved by explicitly advising when not to use (e.g., for broader access, use folder/list sharing tools), but the context is clear.

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