Workflows: disable

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description goes beyond that by disclosing exactly what is preserved (triggers, steps, job history) and that the change is reversible via workflows_enable. That is precisely the behavioral context structured fields cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then state effects, then the routing rule. No redundancy and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a single-parameter state-toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, reversibility, retained state, and sibling alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single `id` parameter already documents both its type and how to obtain it ('Find it with workflows_list'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb ('Disable') plus resource ('a workflow'), with an explicit statement of what disabling does to the workflow's runtime state. It cleanly distinguishes itself from workflows_delete and workflows_enable, which are both present as siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Prefer this to `workflows_delete` when a workflow should only stop for a while,' and names `workflows_enable` as the reverse operation. Both the alternative and the selecting condition are stated outright.

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