clickup_webhook_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Change'), returns the updated webhook object, and includes operational details like pausing/resuming with status values. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, 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?

It is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient: the first states the purpose and key parameters, and the second provides specific usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains the action, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or side effects, which could be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying the purpose of status changes, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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 specific action ('Change the delivery endpoint, subscribed events, or active status') and resource ('ClickUp webhook'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clickup_webhook_create, clickup_webhook_delete, and clickup_webhook_list by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or listing.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., to temporarily pause deliveries by setting status='suspended') and implies alternatives by referencing clickup_webhook_list to obtain the webhook_id, though it doesn't explicitly name other webhook tools as alternatives.

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