asana_add_dependency

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the write nature and safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the dependency direction (e.g., whether existing dependencies are overwritten or appended). Since annotations carry the burden, the lack of additional detail is acceptable but not improved upon.

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, concise sentence that fully communicates the core action and the dependency direction. Every word is useful, and the parenthetical adds essential clarity without verbosity.

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 simple tool with two required parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the reverse operation asana_add_dependent, which could prevent mis-selection in an agent traversal.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to repeat their meaning. The tool description offers no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Mark a task as depending...') and clarifies the direction of the dependency with the parenthetical 'this task waits on them'. It distinguishes the operation from generic task updates, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling asana_add_dependent which may represent the reverse relationship.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical helps clarify the semantic direction, but there is no mention of when to choose asana_add_dependency over asana_add_dependent or asana_list_dependencies, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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