add_dependency

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the functional consequence (successor blocked) but omits operational details such as whether existing dependencies are overwritten, cycle detection, permission requirements, or the response format. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately explains the effect. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior but omits the role of project_id and any constraints or side effects. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It provides meaning for work_item_id and predecessor_id by defining their roles as successor and predecessor, but project_id is not explained at all. This partial coverage leaves a gap for one of the three parameters.

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 function: making work_item_id depend on predecessor_id, with an explicit explanation of the dependency semantic (successor blocked until predecessor is done). This is a specific verb+resource pair and distinguishes the tool from siblings like remove_dependency and list_dependencies.

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 implies the usage context by defining the dependency relationship, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The effect is clear, but there is no guidance on scenario-specific usage.

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