resume_recurring_invoice

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 any side effects of resuming, such as impact on billing schedule, idempotency, or requirements like the invoice being currently paused. This is a mutation with no additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that directly states the action. There is no redundant information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose but lacks detail on behavioral nuances such as what happens when the invoice is resumed or any prerequisites. For a mutation tool with no annotations, some additional context on side effects or state change would be expected.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'id' parameter as the recurring invoice UUID. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action clearly: 'Resume a paused recurring invoice.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'paused' qualifier distinguishes it from other recurring invoice operations like pause, create, or generate.

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 when to use the tool by stating the action, but it does not explicitly provide usage context or contrast with alternatives such as pause_recurring_invoice or generate_recurring_invoice_now. The intent is clear, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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