task_depend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses overwrite semantics, cycle rejection, the terminal-task restriction, the fact that status is unchanged, that no dispatch occurs, and that the reason is written to the audit log. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and guardrails.

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 dense but purposeful; every clause contributes either usage context, a constraint, or behavioral clarification. It is not as crisp and front-loaded as it could be, but the complexity of the operation justifies its length.

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?

For a complex graph-modifying tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation concerns: when to use it, what it does, what could reject it, and what it does not do. It stops short of describing return values or error response shapes, but those are optional in this context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the set semantics with the 'original dependencies + new predecessor' example, but the schema already explains that set is the complete overwritten dependencies array, task_id is the target, and reason is for audit logging. The added value is illustrative, not substantive.

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 states a specific action—overwriting an existing task's dependencies to recompute the dependency graph—and clearly identifies the resource being modified. The concrete S3'/S2.5 example and the statement that it is a pure dependency-graph adjustment distinguish it from sibling tools like task_fork or task_create.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool: after forking a patch branch, to insert a new predecessor and repoint dependencies. It also states when it cannot be used (terminal tasks, cycles), but it does not name direct sibling alternatives or contrast them explicitly.

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