timers_delete_timer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the destructive behavior. 'Stop and delete' directly names the mutation, and the instruction to log the session first adds useful context. However, it does not disclose irreversibility or what happens to the timer's data after deletion, so transparency is only partially complete.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by providing an essential prerequisite for correct deletion.

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 one-parameter delete tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the precondition of logging the session first. It could be slightly richer by naming all relevant create_* tools, but 'etc.' conveys the pattern adequately.

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 100%, and the timer_id parameter is already documented as 'ID of the timer to stop and delete'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Stop and delete a timer') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling timer tools like timers_update_timer and timers_restart_timer. It leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 practical context: before deleting the timer, one should log the session via create_feeding/create_sleep/etc. with timer_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like timers_restart_timer, but the sequencing guidance is valuable.

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