Resume a paused firewall rule to make it active again, while verifying current status to avoid redundant changes.
Resume a paused firewall rule on the box, restoring it to active (POST /v2/rules/{id}/resume, no body). Checks the rule's status first and changes nothing if it is already active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | Rule ID to resume |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Input schema / properties / boxRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Box GID for context (required by API)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "rule_id",
- "box"
-]New value: +[
+ "rule_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the HTTP method and body requirement, and explains the status-checking behavior that makes the operation effectively idempotent. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide, such as 'changes nothing if it is already active.'
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 concise sentences deliver the action, resource, endpoint, request body requirement, and idempotency behavior with no filler. The key purpose is front-loaded, and 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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what happens, how it happens, and the edge case of an already-active rule. Annotations cover the mutation and idempotency profile, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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% and the single parameter rule_id is already described as 'Rule ID to resume.' The description adds the path template showing where the ID goes, but does not add new semantic detail about the parameter's format, constraints, or behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema 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 states a specific verb ('Resume'), a specific resource ('paused firewall rule'), and the intended outcome ('restoring it to active'). It also names the exact endpoint (POST /v2/rules/{id}/resume), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like pause_rule.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a paused firewall rule should be restored to active. It also provides useful guidance that the tool checks status first and is a no-op if already active, so callers need not pre-check state. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.