add_task_dependency

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the dependency direction but does not mention edge cases such as existing dependency behavior, cycle prevention, or error conditions for invalid task IDs.

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, compact sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary words.

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, the description covers the core functionality. However, it lacks contextual information about when to use it, potential validation issues, and interaction with existing dependencies. Given the presence of sibling tools like remove_task_dependency, more usage context would improve completeness.

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 input schema already provides fully descriptive parameter names and descriptions for both blocked_task_id and blocking_task_id, covering 100% of parameters. The description's parenthetical reinforces the direction but adds no additional parameter-level details.

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 ('Add'), the resource ('blocking dependency between tasks'), and defines the directional semantics ('blocked_task waits for blocking_task to complete'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool remove_task_dependency by describing the creation side.

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 remove_task_dependency or update_task. The description defines the operation but lacks context about prerequisites, conflict handling, or use cases.

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