Resume an approved X automation run after spacing, budget, or preflight recovery, posting only known unsubmitted segments and never resending uncertain ones.
Resume an approved run only at a known unsubmitted segment after spacing/budget/preflight recovery. Uncertain segments are never resent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations mark this as a non-readonly, non-idempotent write, and the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it will not resend uncertain segments, addressing the duplicate-send risk implied by idempotentHint=false. It still omits auth/preconditions for a resume operation.
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 tight sentences with the resume condition front-loaded and the safety caveat last. Dense jargon ('spacing/budget/preflight') is unexplained, but no filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description never defines what an 'approved run' is or how it relates to approve_draft/get_run_status, leaving an agent to infer the workflow.
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 0% so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it never mentions run_id or its expected form. The single parameter is a conventional identifier, so the loss is limited, but nothing compensates for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb (resume) and resource (an approved run), and clarifies the exact resume point ('known unsubmitted segment'). It implicitly separates itself from get_thread_run and cancel_thread by scope, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Gives a clear usage condition — resume only 'after spacing/budget/preflight recovery' and only at a known unsubmitted segment. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the trigger context is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.