n8n_stop_execution

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the caveat that stopping may not be permitted ('si tu instancia lo permite') and that it is an attempt ('Intentar'), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens on success or failure, whether the execution must be running, or the return format.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no wasted words.

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?

The description is minimal but adequate for a one-parameter action: it states the action and a key caveat. However, without annotations or an output schema, it leaves the agent uncertain about the result of the call and any error handling. Given the tool's simplicity, a bit more detail on behavior after the call 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 single parameter execution_id is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets 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 clearly states the tool's action: try to stop a running execution. It specifies the resource (execution) and the scope ('en curso'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like n8n_get_execution. However, the word 'Intentar' (try) introduces slight ambiguity about whether it actually stops or just attempts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only condition mentioned is 'si tu instancia lo permite' (if your instance allows it), which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. It does not reference alternative tools or scenarios where stopping an execution would be inappropriate.

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