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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explain the side effect (agents working on blocked tasks get warned) and the conceptual effect (dependency edge). Yet it fails to mention reversibility, permissions, or behavior on duplicate dependencies—important for a mutating tool. It adds some context beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries purpose or usage context. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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 only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and a behavioral consequence. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., duplicate dependencies, validation), but these are not essential for a tool this simple. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and 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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds marginal value by rephrasing the dependency direction ('task is blocked by another task'), but it does not introduce new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Add a dependency between tasks') and clearly identifies the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_task_dependency by explicitly stating the 'Add' intent and elaborating on the dependency semantics ('blocked by' / 'relates to').

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 provides explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to express that a task is blocked by another task... or relates to it.' It also explains the benefit (prevents context contamination). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with similar tools (e.g., remove_task_dependency), lacking clear exclusions.

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