update_dependency

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: evidence can release a dependent while the blocker is still unfinished, and clearing evidence_url re-arms (re-blocks) the edge. That is real behavioral value beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying what the call returns or how re-arming affects an already-running dependent.

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 sentences with no filler, and the identity of the resource is front-loaded before the behavioral caveats. The second sentence is dense and semicolon-joined, requiring a second read, but every clause carries information.

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 output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the semantics an agent needs to avoid misuse, including the surprising evidence-release behavior. The remaining gap is the response/return behavior and whether the call fails when the edge does not exist.

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 100% and the schema already documents every parameter including the enum values and the 'empty string clears it' rule. The description reinforces that condition and evidence_url are the two settable fields and adds the 're-arms' framing, but contributes no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Set') and resource ('the condition and/or evidence_url of an existing dependency edge') and defines the edge direction explicitly as 'task_id depends on depends_on_task_id'. This clearly separates it from add_dependency/remove_dependency by scoping it to an 'existing' edge, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

Usage is conveyed indirectly through consequences: 'Evidence on a non-task_done edge marks the condition met now and releases the dependent' and 'an empty evidence_url re-arms the edge' tell an agent why it would call this. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over add_dependency (create) or remove_dependency (delete), nor any stated prerequisites such as the edge already existing.

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