Resume a schedule

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description discloses the key behavioral consequences: missed periods remain due, the next invoice_generate_due will create them, and the action is refused at the free-tier limit. This gives the agent meaningful side-effect awareness beyond the operation name.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core behavior, then adds important consequences and a refusal condition. The final phrase 'free tier's 3 active' is slightly awkward but does not waste words.

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 operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action, the deferred billing behavior, and a key limiting condition. It does not specify response shape or all possible error cases, but the operation is simple enough that the core context is present.

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 minimal (one string id), so the description must compensate. It implicitly indicates that id identifies the paused schedule to resume, but it does not state where the id comes from or how it should be formatted. The context is enough for a basic call, but not fully explicit.

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 states the exact purpose: making a paused schedule active again. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like schedule_pause and schedule_create.

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 makes the operational context clear: it applies to paused schedules and is refused when it would exceed the free tier's active-schedule limit. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the resume-only scope is unambiguous.

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