n8n-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool deactivates workflows (implying mutation) and requires write_mode (indicating permission needs), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether deactivation is reversible), rate limits, or error conditions, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and effect, and the second specifies the prerequisite. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making every sentence earn its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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's complexity (a mutation with no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral aspects but lacks details on parameter semantics and full behavioral transparency, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is a workflow identifier but does not explicitly explain 'workflow_id' semantics (e.g., format or source). Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but it misses an opportunity to fully clarify the parameter's meaning.

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 ('deactivate') and resource ('workflow'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'activate_workflow' and 'delete_workflow' by specifying that triggers stop running rather than removing the workflow entirely. It provides a precise verb+resource combination with functional differentiation.

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 explicitly states 'Requires write_mode,' which provides clear context for when to use this tool (when write permissions are available). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'activate_workflow' for re-enabling, leaving some guidance implicit rather than fully explicit.

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