n8n_activate_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It states the tool can both activate and deactivate (consistent with the 'active' parameter), but it does not disclose effects like whether deactivation loses state or stops executions, or what happens if the workflow is already in the requested state. Expected behavior around idempotency or side effects is missing.

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?

Single sentence with 7 words. No filler. Every word earns its place, though it could include more usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 3 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete for a straightforward toggle action. Missing behavioral transparency (what happens on toggle, idempotency) and usage guidelines, but still sufficient for basic invocation. The list of sibling tools is available for context but not leveraged.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, the description explicitly ties the 'active' boolean to activation/deactivation, which reinforces the schema description and adds slight value. The 'server_name' default behavior is noted. No extra details on workflow_id format or validation, but adequate given schema coverage.

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?

Description uses 'activate or deactivate' as verb with 'n8n workflow' as resource, which is specific and distinguishes from siblings like n8n_create_workflow, n8n_delete_workflow, or n8n_update_workflow. It clearly conveys the two-state toggle nature of the tool.

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?

Description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention that activation requires a workflow to exist and be valid, nor does it contrast with related tools like n8n_create_workflow (for creation) or n8n_update_workflow (for non-status changes). Usage context is only implicit.

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