sendpulse_resume_contact_automationResume a contact's paused automation and cancel any active pause so their WhatsApp flow continues.
Resume automated flows for a contact, cancelling any active pause.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account name (only one configured: brand_a) | brand_a |
| contact_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it cancels any active pause. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond the pause cancellation.
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 efficient sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the core action before the side effect. Every word earns its place.
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 simple mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description states the action and its key side effect. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about when to choose it over pause/enable/disable or run_flow alternatives.
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 only 50%: the account parameter has a description in the schema, but contact_id has none. The description says 'for a contact' but adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond that, and it does not mention the account parameter or its default.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Resume automated flows for a contact.' It is clear what the tool does and implies the inverse of the sibling pause tool, but it does not explicitly name that sibling or otherwise differentiate itself from alternatives such as run_flow.
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 phrase 'cancelling any active pause' implies this tool is used when a contact's automation has been paused, which gives some usage context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.