everhour_start_timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if a timer is already running, whether the task and project are mutually exclusive, or any side effects of starting a timer. This is a mutation tool with no safety details.

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 very concise at two short sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. It avoids redundancy, though it could use the space to add more behavioral detail without becoming overly long.

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 simple tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a basic complete picture, but it leaves open important operational questions such as interaction with an existing timer and exclusivity of task versus project. Given the sibling tools and no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, meeting the 100% threshold, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond saying timers can be associated with a task or project, which is already implied by the parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Start a new timer') and the resource ('in Everhour'), and mentions it can be associated with a task or project. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'everhour_start_timer_for_task', which likely serves a more specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'everhour_start_timer_for_task' or how to choose between associating with a task versus a project. The description offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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