Delete execution

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the deletion is permanent, retained history is also deleted, there is no recovery/rollback, unsafe mode plus execution-delete permission are required, and the response includes the request-bound executionId with deleted=true.

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 three focused sentences, each serving a purpose: what it does, what input is valid, and what to expect/prepare for. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy.

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 destructive tool with a clear output schema and annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, ID source/constraint, preflight verification, permission requirements, irreversibility, and return behavior.

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 schema already fully covers the executionId type and pattern. The description adds important semantic value by clarifying that the ID must be a saved execution record ID from list/get and that workflow IDs are not accepted, which helps prevent misuse.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete one saved execution and its retained history.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating that the executionId must come from n8n_executions_list or get, not a workflow ID.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: the executionId must be a saved execution record ID, not a workflow ID, and advises confirming the target with get before deleting. This directly tells the agent when and how to use the tool safely.

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