clickup_execute_operator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: workspace scoping is session-derived and non-overridable, operators returning full objects can produce very large results (with the JMESPath `query` mitigation), errors carry upstream status/operationId/body, and timed-out calls must not be retried because they may have completed. That last point is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 the core action and then layered with usage, prerequisites and caveats; nearly every sentence adds distinct information. It runs long for a tool description, and the catalog-growth aside could be trimmed, but there is no redundancy.

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 generic multi-purpose dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly: discovery step, alternative routing, workspace scoping, response-size control, and error/retry semantics. There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the shape and hazards of returned data.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters and the enum values; baseline would be 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it clarifies that `query` is a JMESPath projection to shrink oversized responses, that `operation_id` is only needed when get_operators lists several for a pair, and that workspace_id is auto-filled from the session.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run one enabled Unified API operator (a `<model>.<operator>` pair)") and frames it as the escape hatch beyond the dedicated clickup_* tools. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the ~55 siblings that each do one concrete ClickUp operation.

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?

Gives explicit positive and negative selection criteria: reach for it "when no dedicated tool fits the request or when a request spans many objects," and "Prefer a dedicated clickup_* tool when one covers the whole request in a single call." It also names a required prerequisite ("Call clickup_get_operators first") and the constraint that only enabled pairs are callable.

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