add_dependency_view_edge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the default return behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids') and the effect of verbose=true, which is useful. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., duplicate edges), required permissions, or whether edge direction is from-to or to-from, leaving room for ambiguity. Some behavior is disclosed but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise—two sentences that immediately state the core purpose and then provide a key behavioral detail. It has no filler and is front-loaded with the primary function. Every word earns its place.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It mentions a prerequisite (tasks already present), describes the return summary and verbose flag, but lacks clarity on edge direction semantics, error conditions, or the role of project/view IDs. It is sufficient for basic selection but not fully complete for correct invocation without further inference.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'verbose' parameter explicitly. The other parameters (projectId, viewId, fromTaskId, toTaskId) are named descriptively and the tool description gives context, but the direction of the edge (from vs to) is not clarified, which is a critical semantic gap. The description adds some value but does not fully explain all parameters.

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 action ('Create a dependency edge') and specific resources ('between two tasks already present in a dependency planning view'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as update_dependency_view_edge and remove_dependency_view_edge by focusing on creation, and it adds a prerequisite ('already present') that clarifies scope.

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 implies usage by stating the tools creates an edge between existing tasks, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. There is no mention of using update/remove functions for existing edges or needing to add tasks first. The context is somewhat clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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