clickup_replace_time_estimates_by_user

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the side effect: 'this tool deletes the estimate for any assignee you don't include.' It also explains error codes (400, 404) and their meanings, and describes the return format. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true).

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 well-organized: purpose, HTTP call, plan note, usage guidelines, return description, examples, and error handling. Each section is concise and contributes to the overall understanding, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use/not use, side effects, error handling, and examples. Given the output schema exists, the description effectively supplements it with usage context and edge cases.

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 already provides descriptions for all parameters (e.g., time in milliseconds, assignee can be 'unassigned'). The description adds value by including examples that illustrate the parameter format (e.g., assignee as integer or 'unassigned') and emphasizing the replace semantics. While not necessary, the examples enhance clarity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Overwrite a task's entire set of per-assignee time estimates.' It includes the HTTP call and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool clickup_update_time_estimates_by_user by explicitly noting the replace-all behavior.

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 to use ('resetting a task's whole per-assignee estimate breakdown') and when not to use ('to adjust just some assignees' estimates while leaving the rest untouched'), and names the alternative tool. It also mentions a prerequisite (Business Plan).

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