clickup_guest_update

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 by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation operation ('Update'), has a plan requirement ('Requires Enterprise plan'), and returns data ('Returns the updated guest object'). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers essential context.

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: purpose statement, exclusion clarification, and plan requirement/return value. Each sentence adds distinct value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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: clear purpose, usage boundaries, plan requirement, and return information. It could mention authentication needs or error handling, but covers the essential operational context well.

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 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Update'), target resource ('a ClickUp guest's workspace-wide capability flags'), and scope ('edit tags, see time spent, create views'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_guest_share_* and clickup_guest_unshare_* by explicitly stating what it does not change.

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 alternatives ('Does not change which items are shared with them — use clickup_guest_share_* / _unshare_* for that') and prerequisites ('Requires Enterprise plan'). This gives clear context for tool selection versus sibling operations.

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