Stop timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions rounding application, but omits critical side effects such as what happens if no timer is running, whether it returns the stopped time entry, or if it creates time entries. This is insufficient for a mutating action without annotation support.

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 just two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a relevant secondary detail in the second. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain more about context, such as error conditions, prerequisites, and return values. It only mentions stopping the timer and rounding, leaving users to guess about failure modes and outcomes. This is incomplete for a tool with no structured metadata.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (workspace_id and apply_rounding) with 100% coverage. The description adds a small detail about rounding applying to the end time, but this mostly reiterates the schema. Thus, the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Stops the currently running timer.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like start_timer or get_running_timer. The additional detail about rounding further clarifies its scope.

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 usage is implied by the description: one would use this tool to stop the currently running timer. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives like clockify_start_timer or clockify_create_time_entry, leaving the guidance implicit.

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