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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the auth requirement, the upsert-like behavior when re-creating an existing pair with a new type, and the exact rejection conditions (self-links, cycles, unknown types, date violations). For a non-idempotent, non-destructive write tool with only hint-level annotations, this is substantial coverage of what an agent needs to predict outcomes.

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, then type semantics, then constraints — no filler sentences. The four-clause type sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information, so it is efficient rather than bloated.

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?

With no output schema and only hint annotations, the description fills the meaningful gaps: permissions, validation rejections, type semantics, and update-in-place behavior. It omits side effects on scheduling/recalculation after the link is created, which is the only material gap for a 3-param project-planning mutation.

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, but the description adds real meaning by unpacking the FS/SS/FF/SF semantics and default behavior — valuable because the enum is not enforced in the schema (enums: 0) and the schema only gives one-line glosses.

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 parent→child dependency') with the directionality spelled out, which distinguishes it from delete_task_dependency, list_task_dependencies, and clear_task_dependencies without needing to open any schema.

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?

Implies usage clearly (create a dependency between two tasks) and adds a prerequisite gate ('Requires Administrator or ProjectManager role') plus the re-create semantics. It never explicitly names an alternative sibling or a when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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