clickup_guest_unshare_list

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 an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: it's destructive ('guest immediately loses access'), clarifies what gets destroyed (only list access, not the guest account), mentions the Enterprise plan requirement, and describes the return value ('Returns the updated guest object'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers the most critical aspects 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?

Four tightly-packed sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds critical information: the core action, what's preserved, the destructive nature with clarification, prerequisites, and return value. The description is front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context: it explains the destructive behavior, clarifies what exactly gets revoked, mentions prerequisites (Enterprise plan), and describes the return value. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error condition information, but overall it's very complete for a 2-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. 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 ('revoke a guest user's access to a specific list') and distinguishes it from siblings like clickup_guest_unshare_folder and clickup_guest_unshare_task by specifying it's for list-level access. It also clarifies what happens to other access levels the guest might have.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('revoke a guest user's access to a specific list'), when not to use it (the guest keeps separate task-level or folder-level grants), and provides a clear alternative for re-sharing ('re-share with clickup_guest_share_list'). It also mentions the Enterprise plan requirement as a prerequisite.

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