Update an existing timer's name or assigned child to correct or reorganize tracking data.
Update a timer's name or child association.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name for the timer | |
| child_id | No | New child ID to associate with this timer | |
| timer_id | Yes | ID of the timer to update |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update.' It does not explain whether updates are partial, whether passing null clears or preserves existing values, or whether at least one of name/child_id must be supplied.
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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and the two mutable fields are both front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.
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?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so missing return documentation is not a gap. However, the definition does not address edge semantics around null values or the requirement to provide at least one updatable field, and it lacks any pointer to timer-specific alternatives.
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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description's phrase 'child association' adds a small semantic hint, but it does not clarify null behavior or the relationship between the two optional fields.
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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('a timer'), and narrows the scope to two specific fields: name or child association. It is distinct enough from sibling actions like restart, create, or delete, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 no guidance about when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as timers_restart_timer. The intended use is only implied by the word 'Update', with no exclusions or alternative routing provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.