Delete dependency

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that: it specifies the blast radius ('Only the link goes; both tasks stay') and the undo behavior ('One undo step'), which is exactly the kind of mutation context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its scope, with the sibling routing and undo note following. No filler 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, sibling routing, and undo depth. It leaves one small gap: it doesn't say what happens when the specified dependency does not exist, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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%, including the enum and the meaning of omitting the type field, so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the dependency between two tasks') and immediately scopes it against the look-alike sibling by clarifying that the tasks themselves survive and that task removal is handled by rillsoft_task_delete. An agent can distinguish this from rillsoft_task_delete and rillsoft_task_dependency_create without opening any schema.

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?

Provides a clear routing rule away from this tool for task removal ('deleting a task itself goes through rillsoft_task_delete'), which is the most likely confusion point. It does not, however, cover adjacent cases such as changing a dependency's type instead of deleting it, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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