q402_recurring_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that nextRunAt is advanced to avoid an immediate stale-fire, that income states require pre-actions (restoring wallet, raising cap/re-subscribing), and that cancelled rules are permanently ineligible. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent crucial behavior expectations.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, transitions, scheduling behavior, cancellation caveat, and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderately complex stateful mutation with no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, valid input states, side effect on nextRunAt, and the key exception (cancelled rules). It lacks explicit return-value or failure-mode information, but that's a modest gap given the clarity of the state machine and schema. A 4 reflects this near-completeness.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%; the schema itself already documents ruleId as coming from q402_recurring_list and thoroughly explains walletId defaults. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating 'ruleId (from q402_recurring_list)' and referencing state preconditions. Therefore it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Resume a paused or stopped recurring-payment rule.' It goes beyond a generic verb by enumerating the exact supported state transitions (paused→active, paused-by-archive→active, fired-cap-exceeded→active), which uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like q402_recurring_pause, q402_recurring_cancel, and q402_recurring_skip_next.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use context: it tells the agent to take ruleId from q402_recurring_list and lists the exact preconditions for each resume path. It also gives an alternative for cancelled rules ('re-author via q402_recurring_create'), and its sibling list clearly maps to a recurring-payment workflow, so the agent can choose this tool over pause/cancel/skip.

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