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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing key behavioral traits: the edge is never erased, removal appends to a ledger, re-adding reinstates the original edge, archiving does not release the block, only epics are gated, and specific rejection codes with statuses. These details are not present in the annotation flags (all false) and provide essential runtime behavior.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful behavior (edge persistence, removal, re-add, blocking conditions, rejection codes). It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool, though it could be structured with bullet points for readability. Still, it earns each sentence.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the purpose, lifecycle (add/remove/readd), edge cases (archived prerequisite, non-epics), and error handling, all in one place. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. This is a comprehensive description that leaves no significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by defining the relationship: 'owned ticket' (likely ticket_id) cannot complete until 'another owned ticket' (depends_on_ticket_id) is done, and later refers to the 'prerequisite' (depends_on_ticket_id). This allows the agent to infer parameter roles, despite not explicitly labeling them.

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 action: 'Record that an owned ticket cannot complete until another owned ticket is done.' This uses a specific verb ('record') and resource ('ticket dependency'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like ticket_dependency_remove by explaining the difference in behavior (never erased vs. marks removed).

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 names ticket_dependency_remove as the corrective alternative ('correct a mistake with ticket_dependency_remove'), and it clarifies when the dependency actually blocks completion (only epics, only when prerequisite is done, not when archived). This gives the agent clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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