Resume a paused recurring invoice schedule to restart automated billing; only paused schedules can be resumed, and cancelled schedules cannot be revived.
Start a paused schedule issuing again.
Only a paused schedule can be resumed; anything else is refused with 409.
A cancelled schedule cannot be brought back — create a new one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| recurring_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state-transition requirement, the specific failure code (409), and the irreversibility of a cancelled schedule. Gaps remain on what resuming actually triggers (immediate issuance vs. waiting for the next scheduled run) and on permission requirements.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the precondition and the failed-recovery path. No filler or restatement of the tool name.
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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the main risk an agent faces: calling it on the wrong state. It does not explain the observable effect of a successful resume or how to obtain a valid id, which would round it out.
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% and the only documentation for `recurring_id` is the bare title, so the description must compensate. Saying the target is 'a paused schedule' implies the identifier refers to a recurring schedule in that state, but it adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain the id from recurring_list).
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 a specific verb and resource ('Start a paused schedule issuing again') and names the exact state precondition, which distinguishes it from recurring_pause, recurring_cancel, and recurring_create among siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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?
It states both the when ('Only a `paused` schedule can be resumed') and the when-not ('anything else is refused with 409', cancelled schedules cannot be brought back), plus the correct alternative ('create a new one'). Nothing about applicability is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.