Detach one external-observation timer by ID without altering human input. Use it to stop observing a specific timer independently of mouse, keyboard, or clipboard actions.
Detach one external-observation timer without touching input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timer_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows this mutates state. The description does not explain what detaching destroys, whether observation data is lost, whether the timer can be reattached, or what permissions are needed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is structurally efficient, though the brevity reflects missing content rather than disciplined editing.
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 tool with no output schema and no documented parameters, this description is far too thin. Annotations cover the mutation profile, but the agent still lacks enough context to invoke it confidently.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but timer_id is never mentioned. 'One external-observation timer' vaguely implies the parameter's target but gives no format, constraints, or meaning for timer_id.
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?
States a specific verb (detach) and resource (timer), and 'external-observation timer' narrows the target. However, it does not distinguish detaching from related siblings like timer_invalidate or timer_stop, and 'without touching input' is cryptic rather than clarifying.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus timer_attach, timer_invalidate, or timer_status. The only usage-like phrase, 'without touching input,' does not tell the agent which situation calls for detaching.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.