clickup_task_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 describes the partial update behavior ('Only provided fields are changed; omitted fields keep their current value'), the additive/removal nature of assignee updates, and the return value ('Returns the updated task object'). It doesn't mention authentication requirements, 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: purpose statement, behavioral clarification, and usage guidance with alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information 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 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context. It explains the partial update behavior, distinguishes from sibling tools, and mentions the return value. It could potentially mention authentication 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 documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by listing the updatable fields (name, description, status, priority, assignees) and mentioning the partial update behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic value beyond what's in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Update' and resource 'existing ClickUp task', specifying the fields that can be updated (name, description, status, priority, assignees). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning alternative tools for tags (clickup_task_add_tag/remove_tag) and moving between lists (clickup_task_move).

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 this tool vs alternatives: 'For tags use clickup_task_add_tag/remove_tag; for moving between lists use clickup_task_move.' It also clarifies that only provided fields are changed, which helps the agent understand the partial update behavior.

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