Add a dependency link between two tasks, choosing whether one blocks or waits on the other. Circular dependencies are rejected to keep task sequencing valid.
Add a dependency between two tasks. Circular dependencies are rejected by the API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task that depends | |
| type | No | ||
| depends_on_task_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds one useful behavioral fact—that circular dependencies are rejected—but does not disclose other side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior.
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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the caveat about circular dependencies earns its place.
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?
With three parameters, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description leaves important semantics unresolved—particularly the directionality of the dependency and the optional 'type' field. An agent could guess the intent but may not reliably construct a correct call in all cases.
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 only 33%, with only 'id' described. The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'depends_on_task_id' or the 'type' enum, especially the difference between 'blocks' and 'waiting_on' or what happens when 'type' is omitted.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a dependency between two tasks.' This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_task_dependencies or create_task.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any related sibling tools. 'Circular dependencies are rejected' is a validation constraint, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.