n8n_activate_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or behavior when the workflow is already active, leaving significant behavioral context unknown.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and effectively communicates the core purpose, earning its place without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context such as base_url semantics, expected response, and usage prerequisites, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. While id and api_key have schema descriptions, base_url is undocumented, and the tool description does not clarify its optionality or purpose. The description adds no value for understanding parameters.

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 'Activa un workflow por su ID' uses a specific verb (activates) with a clear resource (workflow by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like n8n_deactivate_workflow. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like n8n_deactivate_workflow or n8n_create_workflow. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario descriptions, offering no usage direction to the agent.

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