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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description goes much further by disclosing the deferred state model (a PENDING suggestion that only creates the dependency on accept) and the circular-chain validation guard. That is exactly the context an agent needs to know a call here does not immediately modify the schedule.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before the usage cue and the accept-time behavior. The parenthetical type list is mildly redundant with the enum but costs almost nothing.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: pending-state semantics, the human-approval workflow, and the circular-guard validation. Only the shape of the proposal result (e.g., an identifier to track the suggestion) is left unspecified, which is a minor gap with no output schema.

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%, so predecessor/successor, type enum, lag semantics, and reason length are already fully documented. The description only echoes the dependency type example ('FINISH_TO_START etc.') and adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('propose linking two tasks with a dependency') and captures the review-gated nature of the operation. It separates itself from direct creation implicitly via 'for human review' and 'writes a PENDING suggestion', but never names the sibling link_dependency that does the immediate write, so the contrast must be inferred.

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?

'Use when you see a sequencing constraint between tasks but want human confirmation before wiring it' gives an explicit trigger and the condition that selects this tool over a direct link. It stops short of naming the alternative (link_dependency) or stating when not to use it, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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