activate_workflow

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

The annotation readOnlyHint:false already signals a state-changing operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that activation causes the workflow to run automatically on triggers, which is a key consequence beyond the raw mutation indication.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose without any redundant information.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about its purpose and effect. It does not cover edge cases, but the simplicity of the operation reduces the need for additional detail.

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 already documents the single parameter 'id' with description 'Workflow ID to activate' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional semantic detail about the parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Activate' with the resource 'a workflow' and explains the resulting behavior ('runs automatically on triggers'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like deactivate_workflow or run_workflow.

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 phrase 'so it runs automatically on triggers' provides clear context for when to use this tool (to enable automatic trigger-based execution). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is sufficient to imply use cases.

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