Deactivate workflow

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description clarifies the actual behavioral impact: it does not delete saved data or stop runs in progress. It also discloses the permission requirement and the return value ('target-validated inactive state metadata'), adding substantial context that the annotations alone do not convey. No contradiction with 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes distinct value: what it does, the ID requirement, alternatives, and permissions/return. There is no fluff or repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 has only one parameter, a full output schema, and annotations, the description covers all necessary context: side effects, preconditions, ID source, and alternatives. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional probing.

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?

Although the schema provides 100% coverage for workflowId with a description and pattern, the tool description adds crucial semantics: the ID must be the current stable ID from n8n_workflows_list or get, and it explicitly excludes name or version IDs. This prevents a common misuse and goes far beyond the schema's generic description.

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 a specific verb ('Deactivate') with a clear resource ('one workflow's future production triggers') and scope, distinguishing it from the sibling tools n8n_workflows_activate and n8n_workflows_archive. It also clarifies what it does not do (delete saved data or stop in-progress runs), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 advises when to use alternatives: 'Use n8n_workflows_activate to reverse the state or archive for lifecycle removal.' It also provides a critical precondition (unsafe mode and deactivation permission) and specifies the exact source of workflowId ('current stable ID from n8n_workflows_list or get, not a name or version ID'), offering complete usage guidance.

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