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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the bidirectional nature of links, the blocked logic, the distinction between dependency_id and task_id, and the important warning that deleting with task_id silently removes nothing but still reports success. This goes well beyond 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: scope, meaningful blocked logic, usage guidance, and the critical ID warning. The front-loading of the core answer and the all-caps warning make the most important behavioral trap immediately visible.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values; it does explain key fields like blocked, blocked_by, dependency_id, and task_id. It does not fully specify the exact output shape or every possible field, but it covers the information needed to call the tool and interpret its results 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% and the single task_id parameter is already well described in the schema as 'by title or id' and 'never a dependency id.' The body description reinforces this distinction but does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does: returns everything linked to one task in both directions—waiting on, waiting for it, and merely related. It also names specific output concepts like blocked and blocked_by, which makes it easy to distinguish from general task lookup tools like tasks_get.

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 advises checking this tool before telling anyone to proceed on a task, giving a clear when-to-use signal. It also distinguishes task_id from dependency_id and references tasks_remove_dependency, tasks_get, and tasks_update, so the agent knows which tool works with which ID.

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