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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavioral context: it discloses that cycles are refused, that self/transitive edges are rejected, names the error codes (cycle/self_edge), and notes the result fields (org, bound). It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantic ('blocker must finish before blocked'), then parameters, then validation and result. Every sentence earns its place, though the heavy inline-code formatting makes the middle sentence slightly dense.

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 5-param tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, parameter equivalence, failure modes, and (briefly) result shape. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema; the main remaining gap is usage/precondition guidance versus sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by clarifying the aliasing that the schema only lists flatly: it makes explicit that blocker_id+blocked_id and work_id+depends_on_id are equivalent pairings and reinforces which ID is the blocker vs the blocked task.

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+resource ('Add a dependency') and immediately defines the semantic model (blocker must finish before blocked). The verb distinguishes it from work_dependency_remove and work_dependencies_list among siblings, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 thoroughly explains how to invoke the tool (two equivalent parameter formulations) but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or any preconditions/exclusions beyond the cycle rule. Usage is implied by the clear purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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