asana_add_dependent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds the directional semantics ('they wait on this one'), which is useful context, but it does not disclose behaviors such as whether existing dependencies are overwritten or how invalid GIDs in the array are handled.

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, information-dense sentence with a parenthetical that efficiently clarifies the dependency direction. There is no filler or redundant wording, and the key semantic point is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter relation operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly: the purpose and direction are clear, and the annotations cover the safety profile. It falls just short of a 5 because it does not explicitly flag asana_add_dependency as the inverse operation, which would eliminate all ambiguity.

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 both parameters are well-documented in the schema: 'task_gid' is the blocking task GID and 'dependent' is the GID or array of GIDs that depend on this task. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('tasks'), and the parenthetical '(they wait on this one)' unambiguously defines the dependency direction. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool asana_add_dependency, which presumably performs the inverse operation.

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?

The description provides clear context for the operation by clarifying that the named tasks wait on this task, which implicitly signals when to use this tool. However, it never explicitly mentions the inverse sibling asana_add_dependency or states when to choose one direction over the other, leaving the routing to inference.

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