ticktick_stop_focus

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies authentication requirements ('Requires v2 API authentication') and behavioral options ('Optionally save or discard the focus record'), which aren't covered by annotations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise with three brief sentences, each adding distinct value: the core action, parameter guidance, and authentication requirement. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one parameter, annotations covering safety/idempotency, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers authentication needs and parameter meaning, though it could benefit from mentioning idempotency or error conditions for a mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose: 'Optionally save or discard the focus record' clarifies the 'save' boolean parameter's semantics. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic description, though it doesn't detail default behavior or implications.

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 action ('Stop the current focus session') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ticktick_start_pomodoro' or 'ticktick_start_stopwatch' by indicating it ends a session rather than starting one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ticktick_delete_focus_record' which might also end sessions.

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 usage when a focus session is active, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions optional saving/discarding, which provides some context, but lacks guidance on prerequisites or comparisons with other focus-related tools like 'ticktick_get_focus_records'.

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