add_task_to_dependency_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids by default') and the verbose option for full data, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, though the precondition that the task must already exist is implied by 'existing task.'

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes. It efficiently conveys the core behavior and a key option without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It covers purpose and return summary but leaves the purpose of multiple parameters and potential behaviors unexplained, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 8 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only clarifies 'verbose.' Other parameters like x, y, note, and collapsed are not explained, nor are the required ids elaborated. The description adds minimal value over the schema for understanding parameter meanings.

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 tool's function: 'Add an existing task into a dependency planning view.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the action is distinct from sibling tools like remove_task_from_dependency_view and add_dependency_view_edge, which serve different purposes.

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 action, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like update_dependency_view_node. The context is clear enough for a straightforward add operation, but there is no explicit exclusion or alternative recommendation.

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