clickup_view_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 clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Rename a view or change its display type') and specifies the return value ('Returns the updated view object'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions that might be relevant for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence, followed by important exclusions in the second sentence, and return information in the third. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for agent comprehension.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well by stating the operation, exclusions, and return value. However, without annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication requirements or potential side effects. The completeness is good but not exhaustive for a write operation.

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 three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the general purpose of updating name and type but provides no additional syntax, format, or constraint details.

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 view or change its display type') and the resource ('view'), distinguishing it from siblings like clickup_view_create, clickup_view_delete, and clickup_view_get. It provides concrete examples of display type changes (e.g., from list to board), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when NOT to use this tool ('To change filters, grouping, or sort order, use the ClickUp web UI — those are not exposed via the API'), providing clear exclusion criteria. It also distinguishes this tool from web UI functionality, guiding the agent away from attempting unsupported operations.

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