clickup_download_task_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does: it discloses short-lived expiry (~5 minutes), single-use semantics on private-attachment workspaces, and the non-idempotent consequence of burning the URL. This is exactly the kind of trait an agent could not infer from name or schema alone.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output, then the critical short-lived/single-use constraint, then the retry path — a sensible order. Slightly redundant in restating the attachment-ID lookup that the schema already documents, and the IMPORTANT/do-not list is dense, but every sentence carries actionable meaning.

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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, return shape, temporal constraints, and error recovery. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 task_id, workspace_id, and attachment_id are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the attachment_id sourcing hint but adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Download a ClickUp task attachment') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling clickup_download_document_page_attachment by scoping to task attachments. The output shape (short-lived URL + metadata) is stated up front, so an agent knows exactly what it gets.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to clickup_get_task with include: ["attachments"] to obtain the required ID, states the fetch exactly once rule, and gives a concrete recovery path ('call this tool again for a fresh URL') when a download fails. It even names anti-patterns (preview, HEAD-request, retry, store) — no ambiguity remains.

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