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

Annotations already disclose the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the remaining burden is light. The description adds genuinely new information by naming the required scope 'project_task_dependencies:write', which is auth context not present in the structured fields. It does not say whether duplicate dependencies fail, whether cycles are rejected, or what the response contains.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope requirement following. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-parameter linking tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers the action and the required scope. Minor gaps remain around failure modes (duplicate dependency, self-link rejection) but nothing essential to invoking it 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, depends_on_task_id and the dependency_type enum (default finish_to_start) are already fully documented. The prose adds no syntax, defaults, or matching constraints beyond the schema, 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') and clarifies the relationship being established, which is more precise than the generic create_* siblings. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the paired delete_project_task_dependency/get/list siblings, so it stays just short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or the fact that a get/delete counterpart exists. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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