workflow_activate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a state mutation tool (activate/deactivate), has prerequisites (actions must be configured), provides failure guidance (configure via Apollo UI), and mentions the return value. It doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects on related resources.

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?

Perfectly structured with purpose statement, important note, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core function, the note provides critical usage context, and the parameter/return documentation is essential given 0% schema coverage.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides complete parameter semantics, behavioral context (prerequisites, failure handling), and acknowledges returns. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. This is comprehensive for a state mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It explicitly documents both parameters with clear semantics: workflow_id identifies the target, and active controls the state (True=activate, False=deactivate). This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Activate or deactivate') on a specific resource ('a workflow'), distinguishing it from siblings like workflow_create, workflow_update, and workflow_delete. It uses precise verbs that indicate state change operations rather than creation, retrieval, or modification.

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 clear context about when to use it (to change workflow activation state) and includes prerequisites (workflow must have actions configured). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs. alternatives like sequence_activate or specify when-not scenarios beyond the prerequisite note.

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