Create a dependency between two tasks to define their relationship, such as blocks, relates_to, or is_child_of.
Add a dependency between two tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task_id | Yes | Task ID. | |
| dependency_type | No | Dependency type: blocks, relates_to, is_child_of. | blocks |
| depends_on_task_id | Yes | ID of the task this depends on. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond this: it does not mention that non-idempotent calls may create duplicate or conflicting dependencies, nor whether cycle detection or validation applies, leaving a real behavioral gap for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects 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?
Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema fully documents parameters, so the minimum is met. However, for a non-idempotent mutation the absence of return behavior, duplicate handling, or failure conditions leaves it only minimally 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 all three parameters and the dependency_type values are already documented in the schema. The description adds no directionality or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.
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 and resource ('Add a dependency between two tasks'), so an agent understands the operation immediately. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling remove_dependency or explain the task_id/depends_on_task_id directionality, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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 versus alternatives such as remove_dependency, or on prerequisites like both tasks existing or being in the same project. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.