add_task_dependency

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether adding a dependency will overwrite existing ones, permission requirements, or effects on task scheduling. The schema implies a default dependency_type, but this is not mentioned in the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 5 words, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse at the expense of completeness, but it earns its place by stating the core action.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks information about return values, error states, ordering of dependencies, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the role of each parameter or the semantics of dependency types.

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 the action 'Add a dependency relationship between tasks', which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_task_dependencies' (read) and 'update_task' (update). However, it lacks specificity about the types of dependencies (e.g., blocks, subtask, related) that are defined in the schema.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that one might need to check existing dependencies first or that 'update_task' could modify dependencies indirectly. No usage context or prerequisites are given.

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