start_time_entry

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'live timer' and 'returns the started entry', but omits important details such as whether only one timer can run at a time, what happens if another timer is already running, or authorization requirements beyond 'token owner'. Significant gaps remain.

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?

Highly concise: two sentences delivering the core purpose, optional bindings, return value, and a follow-up action. No redundant words; front-loaded with the essential action.

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?

Reasonably complete for a simple tool with 5 self-descriptive parameters. However, lacks coverage of concurrency behavior, error handling, and edge cases (e.g., what if a timer is already running?). No output schema, so description should clarify return structure more. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% with all 5 parameters described in detail. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'bound to a task' and 'marked billable'). 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Start', the resource 'live timer', and scopes it to the token owner. Mentions optional binding to task and billable marking. Distinguishes from siblings like 'create_time_entry' by emphasizing the real-time nature and the pairing with 'stop_time_entry'.

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?

Describes basic usage context: it starts a timer that can be stopped later. Provides a sibling pointer ('Stop it later with stop_time_entry'). No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., create_time_entry for non-live entries), but the workflow hint offers some guidance.

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