clickup_space_update

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 explains that archiving is reversible and preserves content ('archived spaces are hidden from default views but retain all their folders, lists, and tasks'), and mentions the return value ('Returns the updated space object'). It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid operational 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: the first states the purpose and scope, the second explains archiving behavior, and the third specifies the return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and the most important information appears 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the reversible nature of archiving and specifying the return type. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error scenarios, but given the clear parameter documentation and behavioral context, it provides sufficient guidance for effective use.

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 four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three modification types (rename, toggle privacy, archive/unarchive) which correspond to the name, private, and archived parameters. This matches the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Modify a ClickUp space') and enumerates the exact operations available ('rename it, toggle privacy, or archive/unarchive it'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_space_create, clickup_space_delete, and clickup_space_get by focusing on updates to existing spaces rather than creation, deletion, or retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Modify a ClickUp space') and explains the purpose of archiving versus deletion ('Archiving is the reversible alternative to deletion'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like clickup_space_delete or provide prerequisites beyond needing a space_id.

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