activateWorkflow

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, destructive state change, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: activation makes live/production events execute the workflow. It doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, or the effect on in-flight events.

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?

Two short sentences, effect stated first and the sibling routing second. Nothing redundant; the parenthetical tag is the only filler.

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 state-toggle with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, effect, and the sibling pairing. Only the implicit publish prerequisite and error/return behavior are unstated, which is acceptable here.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents workflow_id fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (turn the published workflow on) plus the observable effect ('so real events run it'), and names the inverse sibling deactivateWorkflow. It does not, however, distinguish itself from publishWorkflow or testWorkflow, which an agent could plausibly confuse with activation.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('resume a workflow you paused with deactivateWorkflow'), naming the counterpart tool. It stops short of when-not guidance — e.g., that the workflow must already be published, or that publishWorkflow is the tool for a draft.

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