eda_sys_timer_clear_interval_timer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action ('clear') and specifies the return value ('whether the timer was cleared successfully'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for invalid or unknown ids, idempotency, whether the callback is guaranteed stopped, or any side effects beyond the boolean.

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 lines: signature, Chinese action statement, and return semantics. There is no filler, and the purpose appears immediately. It earns its length.

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 low-complexity two-parameter timer utility, the description covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is still thin on lifecycle context: it does not state that the id must come from a previously created interval timer, and it does not explain error behavior or how windowId affects the timer being cleared. An agent would need to infer these details from sibling tools.

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?

The input schema treats args as a generic JSON array, but the description adds a concrete signature 'sys_Timer.clearIntervalTimer(id: string) -> boolean', giving the primary parameter a name and type. This materially clarifies what goes inside the args array. The windowId parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it well.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '清除指定循环定时器' ('clears the specified interval timer'). It identifies the exact object type (interval timer) and operation, and because sibling tools include clear_timeout_timer and set_interval_timer, the interval-timer wording helps distinguish it. The signature line also makes the method and id parameter explicit.

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 the tool is for clearing recurring interval timers but does not explicitly say when to use it versus eda_sys_timer_clear_timeout_timer or that the id should come from eda_sys_timer_set_interval_timer. There is no when-not-to-use or alternative routing. This is minimal implied guidance, not explicit usage direction.

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