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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: pomodoro mode counts down using the user settings, defaults to 25 minutes, can use the minutes parameter, and never records more than that duration. It also states that breaks between Pomodoros are handled in the app. It does not cover what happens if another timer is already running, but the annotations already establish the mutation and non-idempotent profile.

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 followed by the most important behavioral detail about pomodoro mode. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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 description covers the main modes and the recording cap, which is useful for a tool with no output schema. However, with six optional parameters and no required fields, it leaves important invocation details ambiguous, especially whether at least one target must be supplied and whether multiple targets can be combined.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some useful meaning about the default pomodoro duration and the recording cap, but it does not clarify whether target parameters are mutually exclusive or how task_id, routine_id, project_id, and label interact.

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 uses a clear verb and resource ('Démarrer une session de chrono') and specifies the target types: task, routine, project, or free label. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as dandori_control_timer or dandori_stop_timer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by saying the timer can be started on a task, routine, project, or free label, and by explaining pomodoro mode. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus dandori_control_timer, dandori_stop_timer, or dandori_focus_session, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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