Archive workflow

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

The description adds context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the exact effect: archiving preserves the saved definition but makes the workflow unavailable. It discloses side effects (disruption to callers), permission requirements, and the return value (isArchived=true), providing a complete behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: action, parameter clarification, usage guidance, side-effect warning, and permission/return-value context. No redundancy or filler exists.

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 simple schema (one parameter) and rich annotations, the description fully completes the picture. It covers purpose, parameter source, alternatives, permissions, side effects, and return metadata. An output schema exists, so return values are also structured, making this comprehensively complete.

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?

The schema already contains a clear description for workflowId, but the description enriches it further: 'workflowId must be the current stable ID from n8n_workflows_list or get, not a name or version ID.' This clarifies how to obtain the correct value and what values to avoid, adding meaning beyond the schema's brief definition.

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 states the specific action: 'Archive one workflow without deleting its saved definition.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete (reversible removal) and deactivate (stop triggers), providing a precise verb+resource+scope.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this instead of delete for reversible removal; use deactivate only to stop triggers.' It also states prerequisites (unsafe mode plus archive permission) and warns about operational impact (availability change can disrupt callers), leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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