Update timer

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

Adds significant context beyond annotations: the API may treat this as a full replacement operation, and the safe approach is to send all fields from timers_get. This is exactly the kind of behavioral gotcha an agent needs. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the replacement warning is valuable additional context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the critical replacement warning. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (8 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description provides the critical replacement behavior that an agent must know. It could mention return values or error handling, but the core behavioral warning is present.

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 parameters are well documented. The description adds important semantic context: that omitted fields may be lost (full replacement), which changes how parameters should be interpreted. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 a specific verb (Update) and resource (bot timer). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like timers_create or timers_get, but the verb+resource pairing makes purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by recommending the pattern of sending all fields from timers_get, which is a useful workflow hint, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool vs timers_create or timers_delete.

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