clickup_list_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation modifies list properties and returns the updated list object, which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance and return value. Every word earns its place with zero waste, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 well by specifying what can be modified, providing usage boundaries, and mentioning the return type. However, it lacks details about authentication requirements, error handling, and the structure of the returned 'updated list object,' leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the same attributes (name, description, due date, status) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. 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 verb ('Modify') and resource ('ClickUp list') with specific attributes that can be changed ('name, description, due date, or status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming alternatives for related operations (clickup_task_move, clickup_list_add_task, clickup_list_remove_task).

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 NOT to use this tool ('To move tasks between lists use clickup_task_move, and to add or remove this list from tasks with multi-list membership use clickup_list_add_task / clickup_list_remove_task'). This gives clear alternatives and boundaries for appropriate usage.

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