Add Dependency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, failure modes, or idempotency implications. It merely restates the action without revealing any hidden traits.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place, with no filler or 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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves critical ambiguity: it does not specify which task depends on which for 'waiting_on' vs 'blocking'. It also omits any mention of workspace_id or custom_task_ids. The description is not complete enough to guide correct invocation without additional assumptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the core relationship (task_id and related_task_id) via 'between two ClickUp Tasks' and the direction enum via 'waiting-on or blocking'. However, it does not clarify workspace_id or custom_task_ids, nor does it explain the exact meaning of each direction for parameter selection.

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 ('Create') and clearly identifies the resource ('explicit waiting-on or blocking dependency between two ClickUp Tasks'). It distinguishes from the sibling remove_dependency by focusing on creation rather than removal.

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 context for use is clear: you use this tool to add a dependency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like remove_dependency. The lack of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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