undeploy_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects. It mentions 'stopping it from processing events' as the primary effect, but does not address potential consequences like whether running instances are terminated, whether the workflow can be re-deployed, or any permission requirements. This is a basic level of transparency, but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise at eight words, with no redundant or vague language. It gets straight to the point, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and act accordingly. There is no fluff or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it does not mention potential error conditions (e.g., if the workflow is not currently deployed) or any prerequisite state. It also does not indicate whether the action is reversible. For a simple undo-like operation, this might be sufficient, but a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 parameter schema includes a clear description: 'Family workflow_id (not a version-row id).' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type, guiding the agent to provide the correct identifier. The specification that it's the family ID rather than a version-row ID is helpful and prevents misuse, which is valuable for a tool that likely acts on the current deployed version.

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 tool's purpose: 'Undeploy a workflow, stopping it from processing events.' This unambiguously indicates the action (undeploy) and the resource (workflow), and it differentiates from sibling tools like deploy_workflow (which would start processing) and delete_workflow (which would remove the workflow entirely).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as delete_workflow or deploy_workflow. It implies usage for stopping a deployed workflow, but lacks direct guidance like 'Use this when you need to temporarily halt event processing without deleting the workflow.' The single sentence provides minimal context for choosing between related operations.

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