Resume a paused referral by previewing the change first, then confirming with the returned token to apply it.
Resume a paused referral. Write: the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken; call again with confirm: true and that token to do it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Set true, with confirmToken, to perform the change shown in the preview. | |
| referralId | Yes | ||
| confirmToken | No | The token a preview returned. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema behavior: a preview-first, token-confirmed protocol. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive or what side effects resume triggers.
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 sentences, no filler: the action comes first and the non-obvious two-call protocol follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the confirmation workflow. It omits what a successful resume returns or does and how failures (not paused, expired token) behave.
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 67% and documents confirm and confirmToken individually, but the description adds the sequencing relationship between them and referralId (preview comes first, then replay with the token), which the schema alone does not convey. referralId itself remains undocumented anywhere.
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 and resource ('Resume a paused referral') with the state precondition built in, which cleanly separates it from pause_referral and void_referral among the siblings.
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 tells the agent the condition under which this tool applies, and the two-step instruction explains how to invoke it. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating what to do if the referral is not paused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.