stop_tracking

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

The description discloses a documented and live-confirmed API limitation: the task's own times/duration fields are not updated by /track STOP. It also names the exception with mark_done and points to get_time_tracks. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only declare idempotency and non-destructiveness.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then adds a clearly marked, high-value limitation note. Every sentence earns its place, and the caveat is structured to be easily parsed by an agent.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and non-destructive/idempotent annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral caveats and exceptions. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a single task_id parameter described as 'Task ID'. The description does not add new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 verb and resource: 'Stop time tracking for a task.' It clearly differentiates from sibling start_tracking and explains the precise scope of the action. The additional caveats reinforce rather than obscure the core purpose.

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 gives clear context about what happens when stopping tracking and where the data lands (get_time_tracks). It also points to mark_done as an exception that writes task.times, which implies an alternative when task field updates are needed. It does not state the when-not condition quite as explicitly as a full 5 would require.

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