kaiten_update_user_timer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool updates a timer, without stating whether the update is partial, what happens when paused is omitted, what the response looks like, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 filler. The example 'pause or resume' earns its place by clarifying the intended behavior, and there is no redundant framing or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter tool, this is minimally viable, especially since the schema fully documents the parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves return behavior, partial-update semantics, and omission behavior unspecified. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a slight semantic hint that paused corresponds to pause/resume, but timer_id gets no additional meaning. It does not meaningfully compensate beyond what the schema provides.

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 operation (update) and resource (user timer), and adds concrete examples (pause or resume) that clarify the intended state change. It is clear and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate among sibling timer tools like kaiten_create_user_timer, kaiten_get_user_timer, or kaiten_delete_user_timer.

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 examples 'pause or resume' imply the tool is for changing timer state, which provides some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate versus the sibling timer tools.

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