dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only lists action names that already appear in the schema enum, without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what operations like 'resolve' or 'timeline' actually do. This is insufficient for a tool that performs both reads and mutations.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then efficiently list the available actions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, 9 actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only gives a high-level action list and does not explain use cases, prerequisites, return behavior, or potential side effects. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently select and invoke the correct action without further investigation.

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 description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely mentions actions without mapping them to specific parameters, leaving the schema to carry the explanatory load.

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 it manages task dependencies, which is a specific resource type, and enumerates the distinct operations (create, get, update, delete, graph, conflicts, resolve, bulk, timeline). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_link/unlink and dependencies_workspace, which handle different aspects of dependencies.

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 provides the context that this tool is for task dependencies and instructs the user to pick an action, implying usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like dependencies_workspace, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for specific actions.

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