manage_bar_connection

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies exactly which parameters cause failures and directs the agent to get IDs from get_bar_connections. This helps the agent anticipate failure modes without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases, actions, and failure conditions. Every sentence carries useful information, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, which parameters are needed per action, and where to obtain IDs. It does not describe return values, but that is less critical for a create/delete operation and no output schema is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by mapping action values to their required parameters (create → target_bar_id, delete → connection_id) and explaining the failure conditions. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or delete dependency between bars.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_bar_connections. The action list further clarifies the two modes of operation.

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 'USE WHEN' section explicitly lists triggering intents ('Link features', 'Add dependency', 'Remove dependency'), and 'FAILS WHEN' gives concrete error conditions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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