deactivate_workflow

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

readOnlyHint=false already indicates a mutation, and the description adds meaningful context by explaining the operational effect ('stops running on triggers'). It does not disclose whether currently running executions are affected or if specific permissions are required, but the core state change is clearly described.

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?

One concise sentence that states purpose and effect without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose. It could mention impact on existing executions, but given the low complexity and presence of annotations, the description is adequate.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with the description 'Workflow ID to deactivate', so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. According to the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Deactivate') and resource ('workflow') and clearly states the effect ('stops running on triggers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like activate_workflow and delete_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 description implies usage when you need to disable workflow triggers, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. Sibling tools like activate_workflow provide context, but the description itself gives no direct guidance.

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