set_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: it refuses unknown initiatives (input validation) and refuses cycles (graph constraint). However, it says nothing about idempotency, what happens to existing dependencies not listed, permission requirements, or whether removals of non-existent entries error.

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 tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the constraint clause is a compact second sentence that earns its place.

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 annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description covers the relation-type semantics and two failure modes but omits the `collection` parameter's role and any return/confirmation behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 17% (just `ref`), so the description must compensate. It helpfully maps the parameter groups conceptually: add/remove correspond to blocking `depends_on`, and related_add/related_remove to non-blocking `related`. But it leaves `collection` and the required `ref` semantics unexplained beyond the schema, so the compensation is partial.

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 pair (add/remove) and the resource it manipulates, distinguishing the two relation types by their semantics: `depends_on` is blocking and `related` is non-blocking. Sibling tools are largely unrelated (collections, questions, docs), so explicit differentiation isn't needed, though the description never names the target entity as 'initiatives' until the refusal clause.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites for calling it. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb 'add or remove'.

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