11 tools with basic schemas and minimal descriptions. All tools have input schemas with type definitions, but descriptions are generic (10-40 chars), parameter descriptions are sparse or missing, and output schemas are undocumented. No error recovery guidance, no parameter constraints (enums), and no indication of idempotency or side effects. Naming is verb-first and clear (list_, get_, create_, etc.), but parameter documentation is severely lacking. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) despite clear risk levels. Composition is reasonable (single responsibility per tool), but chaining support is unclear due to missing output documentation.

• Expand all tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Example: 'list_workflows' → 'Retrieve all workflows from n8n. Returns workflow IDs, names, and active status. Use this to discover available workflows before calling get_workflow or activate_workflow.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: 'get_workflow returns {id: string, name: string, nodes: array, connections: object, active: boolean, createdAt: string}'. This enables LLMs to chain tools and extract required fields.
• Add tool annotations: mark delete_workflow and delete_execution with destructiveHint=true; mark list_* and get_* with readOnlyHint=true; mark create_workflow with idempotentHint=false (or true if idempotent by design).
• Enhance parameter descriptions with format and constraints. Example: 'id' → 'Workflow ID (UUID format, e.g., 550e8400-e29b-41d4-a716-446655440000)'. Add enums for constrained fields (e.g., status: [active, inactive, draft]).
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. Example: 'If workflow not found, returns 404 with message "Workflow {id} not found. Call list_workflows to see available workflows." This is user-fixable, suggest listing workflows.'