clickup_view_delete

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 communicates critical behavioral traits: the operation is 'destructive and irreversible for custom views,' clarifies that underlying tasks are not affected (only the view definition), and specifies the return value ('empty object on success'). This covers safety, side effects, and output expectations comprehensively.

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: first states the action and scope, second provides critical warnings and constraints, third clarifies side effects and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with specific constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits (destructive nature, irreversibility, error conditions, side effects, return value), and parameter semantics, leaving no gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by reinforcing that the view_id must be for a 'user-created view, not a ClickUp-default one,' which aligns with the schema but provides additional semantic emphasis. However, it doesn't introduce new parameter details beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('permanently delete') and resource ('a ClickUp view'), with examples of view types (board, list, calendar, gantt, etc.). It distinguishes this destructive operation from sibling tools like clickup_view_list, clickup_view_get, and clickup_view_update, which have different purposes.

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 (to delete user-created views) and when not to use it (default views cannot be deleted and will return a 400 error). It also references clickup_view_list as the source for obtaining view IDs, offering practical usage context.

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