add_issue_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the target issue'), the cross-repo configuration requirement (AllowCrossRepositoryDependencies), and defaulting behavior for `dep_owner`/`dep_repo`. It does not cover failure modes like duplicate dependencies or permission requirements, but covers key behaviors well.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the action statement, parameter-direction clarification, and cross-repo/return behavior. There is no filler, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, direction, defaults, cross-repo constraints, and return value. It omits error scenarios, but these are not essential for selection. The schema handles parameter details, so this is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description restates the roles of `index` and `dep_index` and the defaulting for `dep_owner`/`dep_repo`, but adds no new information beyond the schema. It does not compensate for any gaps in parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Make an issue depend on (be blocked by) another issue,' providing a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes direction by stating that `index` is the issue gaining the dependency and `dep_index` is the blocker, differentiating from sibling tools like `add_issue_block` that might represent the reverse relationship.

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 implies when to use it by defining the dependency semantics, but it does not provide explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not compare to `add_issue_block`, `remove_issue_dependency`, or `list_issue_dependencies`, leaving selection context implicit.

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