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

Beyond the annotations (idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals concrete behavioral details: idempotent calls return an already_existed=true flag, self-references are rejected, and no cycle detection is performed. This gives the agent accurate expectations for repeated calls and edge cases.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: core purpose, accepted identifiers, idempotency behavior, self-reference rejection, and cycle-detection limitation. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the operation, the accepted identifier formats, the idempotent return flag, the self-reference rejection, and the important caller responsibility regarding cycles. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 adds the useful clarification that UUID or slug is accepted 'for both sides', but the parameter descriptions in the schema already document each parameter's meaning and role. No additional semantic depth beyond that is provided in the description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Declare that one project depends on another (depends-on relationship)'. This unambiguously identifies the operation and is clearly distinct from the sibling project-remove-dependency, even without naming it. The relationship direction is further clarified by the parameter names and the explicit 'both sides' note.

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 clearly states what the tool does and adds practical usage boundaries: idempotent behavior, self-references rejected, and no cycle detection. The 'caller is responsible for avoiding circular chains' sentence gives explicit guidance about when this tool is not sufficient. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the add-vs-remove distinction is obvious from the operation and sibling list.

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