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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds concrete behavioral details: idempotent returns already_existed=true, self-references are rejected, and no cycle detection. This gives the agent a solid understanding of side effects and limitations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then key behaviors. Every sentence is informative with no padding. Excellent conciseness and structure.

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 tool with complete schema and necessary behavioral caveats (idempotency, self-reference, cycles), the description is nearly complete. It could mention return format or error cases, but no output schema exists, and the critical behavioral context is covered.

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% with descriptions for both parameters, including UUID/slug format. The description reiterates this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'Declare' with a clear resource 'project dependency' and relationship type 'depends-on'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like project-remove-dependency by stating the action is to add/declare a 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 implies when to use it (adding a dependency) and includes important constraints (self-references rejected, no cycle detection) that guide usage. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling list and the action make the context clear.

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