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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the operational consequences: no dry run, no undo besides restoring a saved version, and an error with nothing deleted on unknown id. It also discloses the non-obvious edge case that hierarchy arrows (id struct-{parentId}-{cellId}) count as dependencies and that recreation loses history.

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 action and scope, then consequences, then alternatives. Dense but every clause carries a distinct fact; the final sentence about update_dependency and history is slightly long-winded but justifies its length by preventing accidental history loss.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the failure case but not what a successful call returns (confirmation shape, deleted object). Otherwise the destructive semantics, id sourcing, and alternatives are all present for a 2-parameter 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by documenting the composite id format for hierarchy arrows, which the schema only calls 'ID of the dependency to delete'. expectedProjectId is left entirely to the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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 ('Deletes ONE dependency (arrow) by its id') plus an explicit non-effect ('the two blocks it linked are untouched'), which immediately separates it from delete_cell and move_cell. The capitalized 'ONE' also signals it is a single-item operation, unlike batch siblings.

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 concrete routing rules: re-parent blocks with move_cell rather than deleting the hierarchy arrow, read dependency ids via get_cell_details, and use update_dependency to change type/label/appearance instead of delete-and-recreate. That is explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and named alternatives.

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