deactivate_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the effect (halts automatic execution rather than deleting the workflow), implying reversibility, but says nothing about what happens to in-flight executions, required permissions, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and its consequence, zero filler, and nothing buried.

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 low-complexity (one param, no output schema) and the effect is stated, but for an un-annotated mutation the description omits the fate of running executions and any permission requirements, leaving real gaps.

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 at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents workflowId fully. The description adds no format, source, or validity detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 (deactivate) and resource (workflow) plus the effect (stop automatic execution). It is implicitly the inverse of the sibling activate_workflow, so the operation is easy to place, but the description never names or contrasts with siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: use it to stop a workflow from running automatically. There is no guidance on when-not to use it, nor any disambiguation from stop_execution, which is a meaningful sibling distinction an agent could get wrong.

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