Archive n8n Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the 'soft-delete' wording adds clarity but is not entirely new. The description adds valuable behavioral context by mentioning restore capability, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core statement and includes a useful restoration note. The Args block duplicates the schema, which is slightly redundant but not bloated; overall it is concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, that it is non-destructive, and that it is reversible. It is complete enough for the agent to select and invoke correctly, though it omits details like success response, which are not required for this simple 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 description's Args section simply repeats the schema field (id: 'Workflow ID to archive') without adding any new semantic details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: "Soft-delete a workflow by archiving it." It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning n8n_unarchive_workflow and labeling itself as a 'soft-delete,' contrasting with the likely hard-delete 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 description gives clear usage context by noting the workflow can be restored with n8n_unarchive_workflow, implying it should be used when reversible deletion is desired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with n8n_delete_workflow for permanent deletion.

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