superpos_add_issue_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description should explain behavioral traits. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., what if dependency already exists? Does it validate sub-issues?), error conditions, or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences with no extra fluff. Could be more structured (e.g., separate parameter descriptions) but is efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It misses key parameter semantics and usage context, making it hard for the agent to use correctly without additional inference.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It only explains 'kind' (enum values). It does not describe 'issue_id', 'depends_on_issue_id', or 'hive_id', leaving the agent uncertain about their meaning.

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 declares an issue dependency, specifies the 'kind' parameter, and mentions the return value. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'superpos_remove_issue_dependency' by focusing on adding a 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus others (e.g., when to use 'blocks' vs 'related'). No mention of prerequisites 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.