clickup_task_add_dep

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the blocking behavior ('blocks until that is done'), the mutual exclusivity of parameters, and the return value ('Returns an empty object on success'). It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or permission requirements, but covers core behavioral aspects well.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first explains the purpose and parameter constraints, second provides alternative tool reference and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the blocking behavior, parameter constraints, and return value. It could be more complete by mentioning error cases or permission requirements, but covers the essential context for correct usage.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it reinforces the mutual exclusivity and mentions the blocking semantics, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or contextual information about the 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 action ('Create a dependency relationship between two tasks') and specifies the type of relationship (blocking dependency). It distinguishes from sibling 'clickup_task_link' by contrasting 'non-blocking reference' vs. blocking dependency, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Provide exactly one of depends_on or dependency_of' and contrasts with alternative 'clickup_task_link for a simple non-blocking reference.' It also implicitly indicates when not to use it (when wanting non-blocking references).

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