clockodo_clock_start

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the one-clock constraint and that time is counted live until stopped, which are the critical behavioral facts. It does not describe what happens if a clock is already running or what response the agent should expect, leaving a moderate gap.

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 three short sentences with no filler: action first, then required/optional parameters, then the critical one-clock caveat. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 mutating, stateful tool with no output schema, the description covers the core operational constraints and inputs needed to use it safely. It stops short of explaining the failure behavior when a clock is already running or which tool should be used to stop it, but an agent has enough context to check status and proceed.

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%, and the description only lists required versus optional parameters without explaining what customers_id, services_id, or projects_id semantically represent. It does enumerate all five parameters, which is marginally helpful, but it does not compensate for the complete absence of schema 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?

The description opens with a specific action and resource: 'Starts the running clock (live tracking).' It clearly frames this as the live-tracking tool and distinguishes it from manual entry creation or clock deletion by emphasizing the running-clock state. The required parameters reinforce exactly what is needed to invoke it.

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?

It explicitly says 'Only one clock can run at a time — check clockodo_clock_status first,' which gives a clear precondition and points directly to the relevant sibling tool. This tells the agent when to call this tool and when to pause: after checking clock status. That is strong usage guidance for a stateful action.

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