update_schedulePause or resume a repeated grid schedule by setting its status to paused or active. Restarts schedules stopped for lack of credits.
Pause a repeated grid (status paused) or resume it (status active; a schedule stopped for lack of credits restarts too).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| schedule_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only mutation, so the description needn't repeat the safety profile. It adds a genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: resuming also restarts a schedule that was stopped for lack of credits. It does not mention permissions or what happens to in-flight grid runs.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, with the restart caveat tucked into a parenthetical. No filler, nothing repeated from structured fields verbatim.
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 two-parameter toggle with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core ambiguity (what pause/resume means and the credits-restart nuance). It stops short of explaining how to obtain schedule_id or what the call returns, which is acceptable given the annotations carry the safety profile.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains what each status value does, but the enum already enumerates 'active'/'paused', and the schedule_id parameter is never addressed (its UUID format is only in the schema). Partial compensation, hence baseline-level.
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 concrete verbs (pause, resume) tied to a concrete resource (a repeated grid/schedule), and it resolves the ambiguity of the tool name 'update_schedule' by stating exactly what kind of update it performs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as schedule_grid (creation) and delete_schedule (removal) without needing their schemas.
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 parenthetical mapping of status values implies when to use each mode (paused vs active), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives for related tasks. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.