n8n_deactivate_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the core action without disclosing side effects, reversibility, or required API key/authorization details. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence in Spanish that is directly front-loaded with the primary action. No unnecessary words 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description. For a simple deactivation action, it lacks information about expected outcomes, response format, or constraints (e.g., whether the workflow must exist or be active). This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 67% (id and api_key have descriptions, base_url does not). The description mentions 'por su ID' which aligns with the id parameter but adds little beyond the schema's existing description. It does not clarify the role of api_key or base_url.

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 the resource type (workflow) with its scope (by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_activate_workflow and n8n_get_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 implies usage (to deactivate a specific workflow) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear from the name and siblings, but no direct comparison or exclusion is mentioned.

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