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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the required write scope for authorization. It does not explain validation behavior such as duplicate or cyclic dependency 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?

Two short sentences with the core action first and the authorization requirement second. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 mutation with complete schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing piece: the required scope. Only edge-case behavior (duplicate/cyclic dependencies, return value) is unaddressed, which is minor and acceptable given no output schema is needed.

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% – task_id, depends_on_task_id, and dependency_type all carry inline descriptions plus an enum for dependency_type. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: create a dependency between two project tasks. It clearly differs from create_project_task by naming the dependency relationship, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_project_task_dependency or delete_project_task_dependency.

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 states a prerequisite (project_task_dependencies:write scope) but gives no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives or what conditions make a dependency valid. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the create semantics.

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