stop_running_time_entry

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the PATCH endpoint and that it sets an end time, plus the default-user behavior when user_id is omitted. However it omits whether stopping is reversible, whether it errors when no timer is active, and any permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the mechanism and the optional-parameter default. No filler; every clause carries 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 3-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, endpoint, and user_id default, but stops short of return-value behavior, error conditions (no running timer), and workspace_id's role. Enough to call it, not enough to predict outcomes.

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 only 33%: 'end' is documented in the schema, but 'user_id' and 'workspace_id' have no schema description. The description compensates for user_id by explaining the current-user default, but adds nothing about workspace_id and no format detail beyond the schema's 'end' description.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Stops the running timer for a user in a workspace') plus the underlying endpoint and mechanism, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_time_entry and update_time_entry. An agent can tell this ends an existing running timer rather than creating or editing an 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?

Usage is implied by 'stops the running timer' and the note about omitting user_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of what happens if no timer is running, and no named alternative (e.g., update_time_entry for corrections). Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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