deactivateWorkflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the scope of the change ('real events stop running it') and that data is preserved ('the workflow and its draft stay'), which is the key fact an agent needs since the operation is reversible. It omits effects on in-flight executions and any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, effect first, reversibility second, routing to the sibling third. No filler; the tag suffix is the only non-essential text.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema state-change tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers purpose, effect, reversibility, and the alternative. Minor gaps remain around in-flight executions and error conditions (e.g. deactivating an already-unpublished workflow).

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents workflow_id fully. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('deactivate the published workflow') and immediately states the concrete effect: real events stop running it. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings by clarifying the workflow and draft are preserved, implicitly contrasting with deleteWorkflow, and by naming activateWorkflow.

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 names `activateWorkflow` as the path to re-enable, giving the agent a clear counterpart and the condition that selects it. It doesn't, however, explicitly distinguish this from permanently removing a workflow via deleteWorkflow, leaving that inference to the 'workflow and its draft stay' clause.

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