n8n_activate_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the key consequence—the workflow will begin receiving triggers—but it does not mention idempotncy, errors for already-active workflows, or what the call returns.

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, front-loaded sentence states the action and its consequence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity activation tool with one fully documented parameter, the description plus schema covers the action, target, and effect. It leaves some operational details implicit, such as return behavior and idempotency, but these are minor for this 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 100% and the id parameter is documented as 'Workflow ID to activate'. The description does not need to add parameter detail and does not go 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 uses a specific verb ('Activate') and resource ('workflow'), then states the intended effect ('to start receiving triggers'). That clearly distinguishes it from the sibling deactivate workflow 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?

The phrase 'to start receiving triggers' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple state-transition tool the intended use is evident.

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