Deactivate n8n Workflow

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

Annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints: deactivation stops automatic runs but keeps manual executions possible. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that helps the agent predict side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a minimal Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds behavioral information without unnecessary filler.

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 lifecycle tool, this description is nearly complete: it states the effect, the persistence of manual executions, and the mutation is covered by annotations. It does not mention how to obtain the workflow ID or what happens to currently running executions, but those are minor gaps for a 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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Workflow ID to deactivate.' The description merely repeats that information, adding no additional syntax, lookup guidance, or edge-case semantics, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') targeting a clear resource ('a workflow') and defines the effect: 'stops running automatically.' It also adds a distinguishing nuance ('Manual executions are still possible') that separates it from destructive/archive operations.

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 makes the use case clear: use when you want to stop automatic execution while preserving the ability to run manually. It does not explicitly name alternatives like n8n_activate_workflow or n8n_delete_workflow, but the context is sufficient and no misleading guidance is present.

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