asana_add_task_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Set dependencies for a task' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing dependencies, appends to them, or requires specific permissions. It also lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid task IDs) or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy 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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like whether dependencies are overwritten or appended, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies task relationships, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'task_id' and 'dependencies'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the format of task IDs or constraints on the dependencies array). According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Set') and resource ('dependencies for a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'asana_add_task_dependents' (which likely sets dependents rather than dependencies) and 'asana_update_task' (which might handle broader updates). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this adds dependencies to an existing task versus creating new ones, which slightly limits specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot set circular dependencies), or comparisons to siblings like 'asana_update_task' (which might also handle dependencies). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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