clickup_tag_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the mutation effect ('All tasks using the tag are automatically updated'), the API inconsistency warning, and the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). This covers critical aspects like side effects and output format, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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, behavioral effect, and API note/return value. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the mutation nature, 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavioral effects, API inconsistency, and return value. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or error cases, leaving minor gaps for a tool with significant impact.

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 adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting the API inconsistency (fg_color/bg_color vs. tag_fg/tag_bg), but does not provide additional semantic context for parameters like usage examples or constraints. This meets 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 ('Rename a tag or change its colours') on a specific resource ('within a ClickUp space'), and it distinguishes this tool from its sibling clickup_tag_create by mentioning the API inconsistency in parameter naming. This provides precise differentiation.

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 (to update tag name/colors) and implicitly distinguishes it from clickup_tag_create by noting the API inconsistency. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like clickup_tag_delete for removal, leaving some guidance gaps.

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