clickup_guest_unshare_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 cascading effect of revocation, what gets preserved (list/task-level grants), the mutation nature of the operation, the Enterprise plan requirement, and the return value ('returns the updated guest object'). The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention about permissions needed or error conditions.

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 in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: action and scope, clarification about preserved grants, and prerequisites/return value. There's zero wasted language and it's appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 the essential context: what the tool does, its cascading behavior, what it preserves, prerequisites, and return value. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output format details, but given the tool's relatively straightforward nature, this is acceptable.

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 (like explaining the relationship between folder_id and guest_id). This meets the baseline expectation 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 ('revoke a guest user's access'), target resource ('folder'), and scope ('and, cascading, to every list and task under it granted via the folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_guest_unshare_list and clickup_guest_unshare_task by specifying folder-level revocation with cascading effects.

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 ('revoke a guest user's access to a folder'), when not to use it ('separate list-level or task-level grants are preserved'), and mentions an alternative for re-sharing ('re-share later with clickup_guest_share_folder'). It also specifies a prerequisite ('requires Enterprise plan').

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