update_dependency_view_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful return-value behavior ('Returns summary plus changed ids by default; set verbose=true for full data') but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond direction change. This is more than a bare 'Update' statement but still leaves gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action and the key output/verbosity toggle. Every clause 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to be substantial. It explains the return format but leaves the main mechanics of direction update (from/to parameters) unexplained, omits any usage guidance or alternatives, and does not mention prerequisites or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains only the 'verbose' parameter (set true for full data) but does not clarify the semantics of 'fromTaskId' and 'toTaskId'—the likely core parameters for changing direction. The required IDs (projectId, viewId, edgeId) are self-evident, but the direction-changing mechanism is undocumented.

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 specific function: 'Update the direction of a dependency edge inside a dependency planning view.' It names the verb (update), the resource (dependency edge), and the precise aspect (direction), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_dependency_view_edge and remove_dependency_view_edge.

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 the use case: use this tool when you need to change an existing edge's direction in a dependency view. It doesn't explicitly contrast with add/remove edge tools, but the phrase 'update the direction' gives clear context. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so a minor gap exists.

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