Add Task Dependencies

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states the return value (empty object on success) and recommends a post-verification method (asana_get_task with opt_fields=`dependencies`). It does not contradict the idempotentTrue and destructiveFalse annotations, though it could also mention idempotency behavior if relevant.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence explains the action, the second gives return value and verification. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, behavior, return value, and verification. It does not explain edge cases like overwriting existing dependencies, but the idempotentHint annotation reduces the need for that.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters with detailed descriptions (task_id as GID, dependencies as array of GIDs). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the schema carries the burden.

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 the verb 'Mark' and the resource 'tasks as dependencies of a given task', with a clarifying parenthetical that defines the dependency direction (cannot start until dependency tasks complete). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool asana_add_task_dependents, which handles the opposite relationship.

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 implies usage context by explaining the dependency relationship, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_add_task_dependents. It gives clear context but no exclusionary guidance.

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