resume_recurring_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait beyond the schema: a user-confirmation requirement before the state change. It does not state what resuming actually triggers (next run timing, invoice generation), what happens if the schedule is not paused, or whether the change is reversible.

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, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the confirmation caveat. Nothing in it is redundant with the schema or title.

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 one-parameter state-change tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and a key safety step, but leaves the resume-vs-activate distinction and the post-resume behavior undocumented. It is adequate but has clear gaps given the absence of structured behavioral fields.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Recurring schedule ID to resume'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline at full coverage.

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 gives a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('recurring invoice schedule') and adds a state precondition ('paused'), which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling activate_recurring_schedule, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 'paused' qualifier implies the applicable state, and 'Confirm with the user first' is a usable workflow instruction. But no alternative is named or excluded (activate_recurring_schedule vs resume_recurring_schedule is left ambiguous), so the guidance 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.