clickup_task_add_dep

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

The description explains the relationship semantics (blocks/wait) and the return value (empty object on success). It effectively conveys the core behavior beyond the input schema. While it doesn't detail error conditions or side effects, the function is simple and well-described.

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, each serving a clear purpose: first sentence states the tool's purpose and the two modes, second sentence gives usage guidance and mentions the return value. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description covers the return value. All parameters are thoroughly documented in both schema and description. The tool is simple and the description provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the roles of each parameter, the mutual exclusion between depends_on and dependency_of, and where to obtain task IDs (from clickup_task_list). This goes beyond just the parameter names and types.

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 that the tool creates a dependency relationship between two tasks, and specifies the two possible directions (task_id depends on depends_on or dependency_of depends on task_id). It also distinguishes itself from clickup_task_link for simple non-blocking references.

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 says when to use this tool (to create a dependency) and when to use an alternative (clickup_task_link for non-blocking references). It also instructs to provide exactly one of depends_on or dependency_of, clarifying the mutual exclusivity.

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