add_dependency

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it adds a dependency, returns JSON with round-trip values, explains the `lead_time_seconds` read-back via `dep.leadTimeDuration.workSeconds`, and notes edge case when `lead_time_seconds=0`. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. The first sentence is concise. Slightly lengthy due to detailed parameter descriptions, but justified given the schema lacks descriptions. No superfluous content.

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?

Covers parameters, return format, and important nuances like round-trip and default behavior. Lacks discussion of error conditions (e.g., duplicate dependencies), but overall complete for typical usage. Output schema exists but description adds useful context.

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 0%, so the description adds full meaning. It explains each parameter's role, default values, allowed enum values for 'kind', and constraints on 'lead_time_seconds'. Substantially adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's action: 'Add a dependency from predecessor to successor.' It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling 'remove_dependency'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_dependency' or 'list_dependencies'. Usage is implied by the tool name but not elaborated.

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