Archive workflow

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing is permanently deleted, that an already-deployed version keeps running in the user's Cloudflare account, and that restoration happens in the Nodes2Cloud editor. These are non-obvious consequences an agent must know before invoking a destructiveHint=true tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: effect first, side effects second, invocation condition third. "Archiving twice is harmless" mildly restates idempotentHint but is phrased in user terms and earns its place as a safety reassurance.

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 single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the real-world consequence and recovery path. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 100% and the workflowId description already names list_workflows and create_workflow as sources, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (archive a workflow) and immediately defines what that means operationally: removed from the active list, non-editable, non-deployable. This clearly separates it from update_workflow, deploy_workflow, and rollback_workflow siblings.

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?

"Only use this when the user asks to remove a workflow" gives an explicit selection condition, and the restore path tells the agent how the action is undone. It does not name a sibling alternative for harder removal, but none exists in the sibling list, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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