Add Task Dependents

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavior by stating the return value (empty object `{}`) and elaborating the dependency effect on task scheduling. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action, includes a clarifying parenthetical, and states the return value. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, full schema coverage, clear annotations), the description fully covers purpose, usage, and return behavior. No output schema is needed, and the inverse sibling is referenced, making the context complete.

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%, and both parameters are thoroughly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond restating the relationship, so the baseline of 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 ('Mark') and resource ('tasks as dependents of a given task') and clearly explains the dependency semantics. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling asana_add_task_dependencies by calling it the inverse.

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 explicitly names the alternative tool (asana_add_task_dependencies) and clarifies the inverse relationship, giving the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling.

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