clickup_guest_unshare_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, but not confirmed), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., notifications), error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool and front-loaded with the core action.

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 is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, auth needs), error handling, or what happens post-execution (e.g., confirmation message). While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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%, with both parameters ('guest_id', 'task_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain where to find these IDs or format constraints). Baseline 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's access') and resource ('to a task'), using precise verb+resource phrasing. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clickup_guest_share_task' (which grants access) and 'clickup_guest_unshare_folder/list' (which target different resources), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when revoking guest access to a task is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clickup_guest_remove' (which might remove the guest entirely) or prerequisites (e.g., the guest must already have access). It relies on the agent inferring context from the tool name and sibling list.

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