n8n_restore_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the key mutating behavior: creating by default and overwriting an existing workflow when target_workflow_id is provided. However, it omits the irreversibility of overwrite, any return value, activation side effects, or what happens to the backup file, leaving only partial transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core operation and the second captures the essential behavioral distinction. The key information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the central create-vs-overwrite decision and references how to obtain a valid backup_path. However, it does not explain expected outcomes, error conditions, or the consequences of overwriting an existing workflow, so an agent has to infer some critical execution context.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the role of target_workflow_id but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Restore a workflow from a local backup') with a clear resource and source. It further distinguishes the two operating modes (create new vs overwrite via target_workflow_id), which sets it apart from siblings like create_workflow, import_workflow, or update_workflow.

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 gives internal branching guidance (default creates, target_workflow_id overwrites) but does not explain when to choose this tool instead of n8n_import_workflow, n8n_create_workflow, or n8n_update_workflow. No alternatives or disqualifying conditions are mentioned.

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