activate_recurring_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the state transition (DRAFT to active) and the side effect of starting invoice generation, plus a user-confirmation requirement. It omits reversibility (that pause/resume can undo it), error behavior when the schedule is not in DRAFT, and any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the safety caveat. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description covers precondition, effect, and the confirmation requirement. It falls just short by not covering failure modes or routing to the pause/resume siblings.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as 'Recurring schedule ID to activate'. The description adds no format or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the ID via search_recurring_schedules), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Activate) and resource (DRAFT recurring invoice schedule) and explains the resulting effect ('begins generating invoices on its cadence'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-twin sibling resume_recurring_schedule, leaving the DRAFT-vs-paused distinction to inference.

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 DRAFT precondition implies when this tool applies and 'Confirm with the user first' gives a workflow guardrail, but it never names pause_recurring_schedule or resume_recurring_schedule as alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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