Resume DCA Plan

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully notes that the operation affects the configured schedule and returns the upstream API response, but it does not disclose failure modes, permission requirements, or what happens if the plan is not suspended.

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?

At around 20 words, the description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, the resource, the effect, and the return behavior in three short sentences. There is minor redundancy in saying 'Resume' and then 'Resumes automated execution,' but no wasted or unrelated content.

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 tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description, combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, gives an agent the core information: when it applies, what it does, and that it returns an upstream response. The return structure is generic because there is no output schema, but that is a moderate gap for an operation of this simplicity.

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 plan_id and _jq are already documented in the input schema. The description only repeats 'by plan_id' and adds no additional format, constraint, or behavior details for the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resume') and a precise resource ('a suspended DCA plan'), then clarifies the effect: 'Resumes automated execution on the configured schedule.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like dca_pause and dca_stop, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 'suspended DCA plan' conveys the intended precondition, and the scheduled-execution wording explains what resuming entails. However, it does not mention alternative tools such as dca_pause or dca_stop, nor does it caution against calling it on a plan that is already active.

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