resume_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., schedule must exist or be paused), idempotency, permissions, or behavior if the schedule is already running. This lack of edge-case behavior transparency is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence followed by a structured Args/Returns block. It is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every element contributes value.

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?

The operation is simple (resume a schedule), and the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and return values. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, missing edge-case behavior and prerequisites prevent a perfect score, though these are less critical for a straightforward action.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter: application_name as 'Name of the DBOS application' and schedule_name as 'Name of the schedule to resume.' This adds crucial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 specific action: 'Resume a paused schedule, allowing it to trigger workflows again.' It identifies the resource (schedule) and the effect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like resume_workflow (resumes a workflow) and trigger_schedule (triggers a schedule immediately).

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 implies the tool is used when a schedule is paused, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For instance, it does not say 'to resume a workflow, use resume_workflow' or 'to trigger immediately, use trigger_schedule.' The context is clear from the name and phrasing, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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