n8n-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the permission requirement ('Requires write_mode'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent vs reversible, cascading effects on related resources like executions), nor does it address rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial permission context. Every element earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 this is a destructive operation with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The permission requirement is helpful, but it doesn't address behavioral aspects like irreversibility or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context about the deletion's nature 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 description doesn't mention the 'workflow_id' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter is undocumented in both places. However, with only one parameter, the agent can reasonably infer that 'workflow_id' identifies which workflow to delete. The description adds no value beyond this basic inference, meeting the baseline for minimal parameter documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deactivate_workflow' by specifying permanent removal rather than state change. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete_credential' or 'delete_tag', leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides implicit guidance by mentioning 'Requires write_mode', suggesting this tool should be used when write permissions are available. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'deactivate_workflow' (for temporary disabling) or 'update_workflow' (for modification), nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the permission requirement.

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