github_issues_add_blocked_by_dependency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens when the dependency already exists, whether it overwrites or appends, or any required permissions. The body parameter is vaguely described as 'Request body (JSON object)' without specifying its expected structure.

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, making it concise. However, it omits critical details and lacks front-loading of essential information. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness in this case.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, a nested object body, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is deeply insufficient. It fails to explain the body structure, the effect of the operation, or how it integrates with other issue tools. The agent is left without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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%, but descriptions for owner, repo, and issue_number merely repeat the parameter names. The body parameter description is generic and uninformative, failing to clarify which fields are needed. The description adds no meaningful information beyond the schema.

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 the action 'Add a dependency' and the context 'an issue is blocked by'. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose of adding a blocking dependency to an issue. The verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though phrasing could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adding sub-issues or listing dependencies. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the issue needing to exist or the dependency being a valid issue reference.

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