Update Timer Task

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning it modifies state but is not destructive. The description confirms mutation ('modify details'). It does not disclose additional traits (e.g., if timer is paused, what if timer not running, authorization needs). The openWorldHint=true suggests unknown side effects, but description adds no extra transparency.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the use case, no redundant words. Every word is meaningful and earned.

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?

Given 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description captures the core purpose. It implicitly requires a running timer but doesn't state this explicitly, nor does it clarify that all parameters are optional. Still, it provides sufficient completeness for an agent.

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 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description lists only some parameters (description, location, billability, mood rating), omitting locationEnd. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, simply restating the examples. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'modify details' and identifies the resource as 'currently running timer task'. It lists specific example fields (description, location, billability, mood rating), distinguishing it from sibling tools like timer_stop (state control) and task_update (non-timer tasks).

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 explicitly says 'use this when the user wants to modify details of the currently running timer task', providing context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving implicit differentiation from siblings like timer_start or task_update.

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