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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: the not-found case returns removed=false rather than an error, and the success return flag is described. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 carry all essential information: the action, the two valid call patterns, and the return behavior. There is no filler, tautology, or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 mutation with mode-dependent parameters and no output schema, the description covers the meaningful cases: success, not-found, and both lookup strategies. It could have explicitly warned against invalid or incomplete argument combinations, but the 'pass X or pass both Y and Z' wording largely covers that.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a clear mapping between parameters and the two lookup modes, plus return semantics. It clarifies that dependencyId is the UUID of the link itself and that projectId/dependsOnProjectId accept UUID or slug, though it uses dependency_id while the schema uses dependencyId.

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+resource ('Remove a project dependency') and clearly identifies the target as a dependency link, distinguishing it from project-delete and goal-remove-* tools. The two-lookup-mode explanation further clarifies exactly what entity is being 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?

It gives concrete usage directions for both lookup modes and states the condition for each: pass dependencyId, or pass both projectId and dependsOnProjectId. It does not explicitly name alternatives like project-add-dependency, but the resource-specific naming makes the intended use obvious.

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