deactivate-workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that deactivation prevents running (a key behavioral trait) and notes a critical formatting constraint for arguments. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, reversibility, effects on related entities, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a critical formatting note. Both sentences are essential—no fluff—making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the action and a formatting rule but misses parameter semantics, behavioral details like side effects, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain what 'clientId' or 'id' represent, their formats, or examples. The mention of JSON formatting adds some value but does not clarify parameter meanings beyond the schema.

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 states the action ('deactivate') and resource ('workflow by ID'), specifying that it prevents the workflow from running. It distinguishes from sibling 'activate-workflow' by indicating the opposite action, though not explicitly naming the alternative.

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 implies usage when needing to stop a workflow from running, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'delete-workflow' or provide prerequisites. It mentions an important formatting requirement, which offers some contextual guidance.

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