deactivate-workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the main effect (prevent running) but omits details about reversibility, permissions, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences plus a bold note, no fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and the important formatting note is highlighted. Every sentence 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 with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose and a key formatting detail, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., relationship with 'init-n8n' for clientId) and reversibility. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds a crucial formatting requirement ('compact, single-line JSON without whitespace or newlines') that is not in the schema, and clarifies the 'id' parameter's role. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Deactivate', the resource 'workflow', and the method 'by ID'. It also explains the consequence ('prevent the workflow from running'), which 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 want to stop a workflow), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activate-workflow'. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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