Activate workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the outcome ('starts running on its triggers') but does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions needed, or state transitions. 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words; every part adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the main purpose and activation effect. However, it could mention that the workflow must be in an inactive state or that activation is reversible, but these are minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (one 'id' parameter described as 'Workflow ID'). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter; it merely restates the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Activate a workflow (starts running on its triggers).' It uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('workflow'), and the parenthetical clarifies the behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like 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 implies usage: to start a workflow's triggers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when the workflow is inactive, or prerequisites like workflow being in a valid state). The name and context provide some guidance, but explicit guidelines are missing.

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