n8n_workflow_versions

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description goes beyond by detailing which modes are destructive (delete, truncate), that rollback creates a backup first, and that truncate requires explicit confirmation. This fully informs about behavioral traits.

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 yet comprehensive, using a bullet list to clearly present six modes. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 complexity with multiple modes and optional parameters, the description covers all necessary selection and usage details. The absence of an output schema is acceptable as the tool's return values are straightforward (e.g., list returns versions, delete returns success).

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining per-mode parameter requirements and behaviors (e.g., 'creates backup first' for rollback, 'REQUIRED: Must be true to truncate all versions' for confirmTruncate).

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 manages workflow version history, rollback, and cleanup, and enumerates six specific modes with brief explanations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle other aspects of workflow management.

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 clear context for each mode and its required parameters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the specific functionality makes it distinct, and the mode-based structure gives clear selection guidance.

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