Unarchive workflow

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it does not activate triggers, it requires the archived workflow ID specifically (not a name or version), it does not infer current active state, and it returns 'target-validated metadata with isArchived=false'. This adds significant context and clarifies side effects and permissions.

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 and front-loaded. The core purpose appears in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by adding necessary constraints, usage context, or behavioral caveats. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still provides a complete operational picture: prerequisites (unsafe mode and permission), required identifier semantics, trigger behavior, and a summary of the returned metadata. For a single-parameter mutation tool, this is fully sufficient and leaves no critical gap.

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% and the schema already describes workflowId as a 'Stable ID of the workflow to restore from archive.' The description adds valuable nuance by clarifying that workflowId must identify the archived workflow itself, not a name or version ID. This goes beyond the schema's minimal description, though the schema covers the basic 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 identifies the action ('Restore one archived workflow'), the resource, and a key non-goal ('without activating its triggers'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n8n_workflows_archive and n8n_workflows_activate by explicitly framing itself as the reverse operation.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to reverse n8n_workflows_archive' and tells when NOT to use it ('call activate separately only if triggers should resume'). It also states the prerequisite 'unsafe mode plus unarchive permission', giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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