n8n: Delete workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description reinforces irreversibility with 'This action cannot be undone', which is useful emphasis, but it says nothing about side effects (e.g. whether associated executions, tags, or active schedules are affected), permission requirements, or error behavior on a missing workflow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the irreversibility warning — no padding. The unexplained '[UNIFIED]' token is the only wasted element.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description does not do enough: it omits permission/auth needs, cascade effects, and any meaning for the required 'site' argument. An agent could pick this tool but has little basis for invoking it correctly or safely.

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 0% and the description mentions neither parameter. 'workflow_id' is reasonably inferable from the tool name and resource, but 'site' is completely opaque — it is unclear whether it is an instance URL, an alias, or a tenant identifier, and nothing in the description compensates for that gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a workflow'), and the word 'permanently' implicitly separates it from n8n_deactivate_workflow, which is the nearest sibling. It stops short of naming or contrasting any alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no stated alternative (e.g. deactivate instead of delete when the workflow may be needed later). The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is left unexplained and gives no routing signal.

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