clickup_time_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the mutation behavior (starting/stopping timers), mentions the return value ('Returns the newly started time entry object'), and clarifies the automatic handling of existing timers. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides solid operational context for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the core action, explaining sibling relationships, and describing the return value. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information (starting the timer) comes first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the core behavior, return value, and sibling relationships. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication requirements or error cases, but given the 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral description, it provides adequate context for effective tool use.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Start a live time-tracking timer'), identifies the resource ('for the authenticated user'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly naming clickup_time_stop and clickup_time_current as complementary tools. It goes beyond just restating the name to explain the core functionality.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Pair with clickup_time_stop to end the timer and record the entry. Use clickup_time_current to inspect the running timer.') and mentions the automatic handling of existing timers ('If a timer is already running it will be stopped first'). This gives clear context about its role in the workflow and relationships with sibling tools.

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