activate_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that after activation, the workflow will automatically respond to triggers (webhook, schedule, etc.). This adds some behavioral context, but it does not discuss idempotency, effects of activating an already-active workflow, or potential errors. The description provides adequate but not comprehensive 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 concise: two short sentences in Indonesian. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds a precondition and behavioral note. No extraneous information is present; 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It covers the action, precondition, and automatic response. It does not mention the output schema, but that is acceptable since the schema is available separately. A small gap is the lack of mention of potential failure cases (e.g., already active workflow).

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (workflow_id), so the schema already documents its meaning. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no clarification on format or how to obtain the ID). Thus, score is at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's purpose: 'Aktifkan workflow di n8n agar mulai memproses trigger' (Activate workflow in n8n to start processing triggers). It specifies the verb (activate) and resource (workflow), and the context distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'deactivate_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 provides a precondition: 'Pastikan workflow sudah memiliki trigger node' (Make sure the workflow already has a trigger node). It explains the automatic triggering behavior after activation, giving a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied opposite (deactivate).

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