manage_bar_connection

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, and the description confirms create/delete actions. It adds failure conditions and ID retrieval tips, but could mention potential side effects like cascading deletions; still, it provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose statement, usage scenarios, parameter mapping, and failure conditions—all in a few lines. Every sentence adds value, with no 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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers actions, required parameters, and fallbacks. It could briefly mention what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure), but overall it's complete enough for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping 'create' to target_bar_id and 'delete' to connection_id, clarifying parameter usage per action and failure conditions, elevating it above baseline.

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 'Create or delete dependency between bars,' specifying the exact actions and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like manage_bar and manage_bar_link, which manage other aspects.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' scenarios ('Link features', 'Add dependency', 'Remove dependency') and 'FAILS WHEN' conditions are provided, plus guidance to get IDs from get_bar_connections, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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