n8n_rollback_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 reveals a key trait: the current state is snapshotted first, so rollbacks are themselves undoable. It also explains the recreate behavior for deleted workflows, adding meaningful context beyond the obvious mutation implied by 'restore'.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first phrase, followed by the most important behavioral guarantee (undoability) and the key edge case (deleted workflows). Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operation, the undo safeguard, and the deleted-workflow scenario. It does not mention effects on active/enabled workflows or permission requirements, but those are not essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, reaching 100% coverage. The description only restates the 'latest by default' timestamp behavior and the recreate use case already present in the schema, so it adds no new semantic value beyond the baseline set by 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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Restore a workflow to a previous snapshot', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like n8n_list_workflow_snapshots or n8n_diff_workflow_snapshot. It also signals the recreate edge case, which further clarifies its unique role among workflow tools.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to restore a workflow to a previous snapshot, with a specific condition for deleted workflows (recreate=true). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like n8n_update_workflow or n8n_create_workflow, but the intended context is clear without needing to name them.

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