tb_set_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that the operation is atomic and replaces a dependency set, but it omits critical behavioral context such as optimistic concurrency via revision fields, conflict handling, permission requirements, and idempotency semantics.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and noun, with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

This is a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description is too terse to provide adequate decision-making context: it does not mention revision checks, idempotency behavior, constraints on dependencies, or the expected outcome/receipt.

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 0%, and the description only maps conceptually to board_id, task_id, and dependency_task_ids. The remaining seven parameters—expected_board_revision, expected_task_revision, actor, idempotency_key, coordination_mode, api_version, and schema_version—are not explained or contextualized in the description.

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 states a specific verb ('replace'), a precise resource ('direct-v1 task's normalized same-board dependency set'), and an important qualifier ('atomically'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic sibling tools like tb_update or tb_query.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusivity conditions. The atomic dependency-set replacement use case is only implied, with no when/when-not framing.

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