restart_timer

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behaviors: a new running entry is started, and only project/activity are copied from an existing entry. It does not mention potential side effects, such as whether an active timer must be stopped or gets replaced, which leaves some behavioral uncertainty.

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 wasted words. Every clause contributes meaning: 'Start a new running entry' and 'copies an existing one's project/activity' together fully define the operation.

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 is simple, with one parameter and an output schema, so the description enables basic invocation. However, with no annotations it omits when to use this versus alternatives and fails to clarify behavior around currently active timers. This makes it minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 for the single timesheet_id parameter. The phrase 'existing one's project/activity' gives meaningful context that the ID identifies the source entry, but the connection is implicit rather than explicit. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 ('Start a new running entry') and a distinguishing behavior ('copies an existing one's project/activity'). This makes it clear how it differs from start_timer or log_time. However, 'existing one' is not explicitly tied to the timesheet_id parameter, which leaves a small ambiguity.

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 tool is for reusing a previous entry's project/activity rather than starting from scratch, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over start_timer or log_time. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself offers no direct guidance or exclusions.

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