start_tracking

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds little beyond the word 'start'. It does not explain what state changes occur, whether starting tracking again after an active session is handled, or any other behavioral details that would supplement the annotations.

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 one short declarative sentence with no filler, and the main verb and object are front-loaded. For such a simple tool, this level of brevity is appropriate and effective.

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?

With only one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description provides enough information to make a basic correct invocation. It could explain more about tracking semantics or when to choose this tool, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter task_id is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat its meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's existing 'Task ID' documentation, making the baseline score of 3 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 names a specific action ('Start') and resource ('time tracking for a task'), so the core purpose is immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_time_block or stop_tracking, but the opposition with stop_tracking is strongly implied by naming.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as create_time_block or get_time_tracks. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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