resume_account

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

No annotations are provided, but the description carries the burden well by labeling this as a WRITE ACTION, explaining that it restores the account to active status, and noting the conditional restoration of daily position limits when they were frozen at 0. It also states that the updated account record is returned, though it does not cover permissions or idempotency.

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 front-loaded with the write-action label and core behavior, then uses a short list of example questions to illustrate usage. The examples slightly lengthen the text but remain useful and do not bury the main purpose.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, its main effects, and the return value adequately. It misses differentiation from the closely related unfreeze_trading sibling, which is a minor but real completeness gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds contextual meaning for restore_daily_limit by explaining the frozen-limit scenario, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb (resume/reactivate) and resource (trading account) with the specific effect of restoring active status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling tool unfreeze_trading, which appears to cover a very similar action.

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 example questions imply typical use cases such as resuming an FTMO Challenge account or reactivating a Binance Futures account. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus unfreeze_trading or pause_account, leaving the agent to infer the correct routing.

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