workflow_epic_add_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Record' implies a mutation, but it doesn't say whether the operation is idempotent, whether it validates against cycles, what permissions are needed, or whether conflicting dependencies are rejected.

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?

A single, well-formed sentence with the key relation type front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the definition omits too much: permission requirements, idempotency, error behavior, and the direction semantics of from/to tickets are all missing.

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 the description must explain all three parameters. It hints at the mapping ('two tickets of one epic') and the relation direction via REQUIRES_BEFORE, but never clarifies which ticket is the prerequisite versus the dependent, nor the ID formats.

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?

States a specific verb (Record), a precise relation type (REQUIRES_BEFORE), and the scope (two tickets of one epic). An agent can distinguish it from most siblings like workflow_epic_attach_ticket, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternative.

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 siblings such as workflow_epic_attach_ticket or workflow_epic_join. The use case is only implied by the word 'dependency'; prerequisites and exclusions are absent.

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