Resume a schedule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by explaining a non-obvious consequence: periods that fell due while paused are still due and will be created by the next invoice_generate_due. It does not mention error handling or idempotency, but the key behavioral nuance is covered.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient. It defines when to use the tool and the important downstream effect on invoice generation, so an agent has what it needs to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented id parameter. It does not explicitly say that id identifies the paused schedule to resume, though 'a paused schedule' implies the target. For a single, simple required parameter this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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: 'Make a paused schedule active again.' This clearly expresses the operation and target, and the word 'schedule' disambiguates it from the unrelated resume_to_markdown, resume_read, and resume_create sibling tools.

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 gives a clear condition for use: the schedule must be paused. It does not explicitly name alternatives like schedule_update or schedule_pause, but the condition and action are clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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