set_dependency

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

No annotations exist, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It briefly explains the type parameter but omits side effects, authorization needs, or what happens if a dependency already exists. The description lacks depth on behavior.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is concise but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from parameter details.

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?

With 6 parameters (3 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the concept of dependencies, lag days effect, or the file parameter. A more comprehensive description is needed for adequate context.

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 0%; parameters have only titles and types. The description adds meaning to the 'type' parameter by listing values, but does not explain 'file', 'lag_days', 'out', or the IDs. It insufficiently compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool creates a dependency between tasks ('Crea una dependencia entre tareas'). It specifies the type parameter values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_task or assign_resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for creating task dependencies, but does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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