Deactivate workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It explains the outcome ('stops responding to its triggers') but omits details like reversibility (can be reactivated?), permission requirements, or side effects on existing executions.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and provides a clear parenthetical explanation. No wasted words.

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 1 parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is mostly complete. It explains the outcome, but could mention that the workflow must exist and that deactivation is reversible (implied by sibling 'activate_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 coverage is 100% (one parameter 'id' described as 'Workflow ID'). The description adds no further parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter meaning.

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 'Deactivate a workflow' and explains what that means ('stops responding to its triggers'). It distinguishes from siblings like activate_workflow (opposite) and delete_workflow (permanent removal).

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 when to use (to stop a workflow from triggering) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites. It lacks information on when not to use (e.g., if already deactivated) or comparison with other sibling tools like update_workflow.

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