n8n_deactivate_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that deactivation stops triggers, which is the core side effect. However, it does not mention whether deactivation is reversible, whether in-flight executions are affected, or any permission requirements.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and its purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple one-parameter state-change tool, the description plus schema is largely complete: the agent knows what to call, what parameter to provide, and what effect to expect. Minor gaps include reversibility and edge cases, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 single 'id' parameter is already well-documented as 'Workflow ID to deactivate.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('deactivate') and a clear resource ('workflow'), and explicitly states the intended effect: 'to stop receiving triggers.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like n8n_activate_workflow and n8n_delete_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 phrase 'to stop receiving triggers' gives clear contextual guidance for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is obvious and it pairs naturally with n8n_activate_workflow.

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