timer_calibrate

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, non-idempotent, and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the prepared-ticket prerequisite and explicit expired_observed state requirement, but does not explain what the calibration overwrites or how destructive the anchoring operation is.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and following with the key conditional state requirement. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent timer mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description omits important context: timer_id semantics, the full state enum meaning, and the effect of anchoring on an existing timer. It gives some targeted guidance but is not complete enough for safe invocation without inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies ticket_id via "prepared ticket," observed_seconds via "caller-observed seconds," and the expired_observed state, but leaves timer_id unexplained and does not clarify the running or paused_observed enum values.

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 states a specific action ("Anchor a timer") with key inputs ("prepared ticket" and "caller-observed seconds"), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling timer_attach or timer_prepare, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase "using a prepared ticket" implies a prerequisite likely satisfied by timer_prepare, and the expired_observed condition gives one usage condition. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over timer_attach, timer_status, or timer_invalidate, so guidance is only implied.

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