ass_set_times

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does much of it: it documents the mutual-exclusion rule, the at-least-one-field requirement, and that an end before start is rejected with a ToolError naming both values. It does not mention permissions, undoability, or persistence behavior for the mutation.

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?

Front-loads the operation, then uses clearly labeled Args and Returns blocks with no filler. The return-value paragraph is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is compact and never wastes a sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, it covers the key semantics an agent needs: field exclusivity, minimum requirement, validation errors, and change reporting. Only the doc_id null default and any permission/undo implications are left unstated, which are minor given the output schema covers the return shape.

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, and it documents all five parameters including the time-string format example for start_ms/end_ms. The one gap is doc_id: the schema defaults it to null but the description never explains that null means the active document.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the start, end and/or duration of one line.' The scope ('one line') and the three time fields distinguish it from sibling plural/batch timers such as ass_set_durations, ass_shift_times and ass_scale_times.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: at least one of the three time fields must be supplied, and end_ms is mutually exclusive with duration_ms. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for multi-line timing edits, so applicability is implied by 'one line' rather than stated.

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