paymo_start_timer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior that any running timer is closed first to avoid concurrency, which goes beyond a simple 'start' and adds real value. It does not detail response format or error cases, but these are not essential for a tool this simple.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every word adds value. Extremely concise and easy to scan.

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 has only one parameter, no output schema, and a clear behavioral note, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, parameter (via schema), and an important side effect. Missing return-value details are minor.

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%, with the 'task' parameter clearly described as a numeric id or human task code. The description does not add additional parameter context, but the schema already covers it, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts a Paymo time entry on a task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like paymo_stop_timer and paymo_timer_status by focusing on the start action.

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 purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and it implies a direct alternative to stopping/timing. It mentions the concurrency behavior but does not explicitly say when to use it over other timer-related tools, though the context makes it obvious.

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