add_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the dependency relationship and that it returns confirmation with updated task info, but it does not mention edge cases like duplicate dependencies, invalid task IDs, or cyclic dependency checks.

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 compact and well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter roles, and return value. It lacks details on error handling or duplicate dependency behavior, but the low complexity makes it reasonably 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?

The description provides clear meanings for both parameters beyond the schema titles: task_id is the dependent task, and depends_on_id is the prerequisite task. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent understand which ID goes where.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a dependency between two tasks.' It further distinguishes the direction of the dependency by explaining 'must be completed first,' which sets it apart from sibling tools like remove_dependency.

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 explains the semantic meaning of the dependency (the task depends on another that must be completed first), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use remove_dependency instead.

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