stop_timer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop a running timer' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the stopped time entry (is it saved, editable, deleted?), whether there are side effects, or what the response contains. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that directly address purpose and parameters. The structure is front-loaded with the core action first, followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 provides basic completeness but has significant gaps. It covers the core action and parameter meaning adequately, but lacks information about behavioral consequences, error conditions, return values, and integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of stopping a timer (which likely has side effects), the description should do more to contextualize the operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds crucial semantic context by explaining that 'time_entry_id' refers to 'The ID of the running time entry to stop'. This clarifies what the parameter represents beyond just being an integer ID. However, it doesn't specify where to obtain this ID or provide format examples.

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 ('Stop') and target resource ('a running timer'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_timer' and 'list_time_entries'. It provides a complete verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a timer must be running), doesn't specify what happens after stopping (e.g., whether time is logged), and doesn't differentiate from related operations like pausing or editing time entries. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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