Iniciar registro de tiempo en una tarea

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-pause behavior and authorization requirements, which are key behavioral traits. It does not cover error or edge cases, but for a simple timer tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, each adding critical information: the primary action and the key behaviors. No redundancy, and the most important points are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the auto-pause feature, and authorization. It does not mention what happens if the task is already being timed or if the token is invalid, but these fall within acceptable gaps for a basic tool.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: taskId is implied as the task to start. Since schema_description_coverage is only 50%, more detail on parameters (e.g., what constitutes a valid taskId) would be beneficial, but the description partially compensates by providing context.

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 it creates a start time record for a task, and distinguishes from sibling stop_task_timer by mentioning automatic pausing of previous timers. The verb and resource are specific.

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 explains automatic pausing for task switching and restricts usage to assignee or admin. It does not explicitly compare to siblings like stop_task_timer, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool.

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