Stop execution

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that HTTP 200 alone does not prove cancellation, explains response-state mapping, notes that completed external effects remain, and states required permissions. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence provides necessary operational details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers constraints and caveats. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but no waste.

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 tool with a single parameter, the description covers prerequisites, error conditions, response interpretation, and side effects. The output schema already documents return values, so the description completes the behavioral contract effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial meaning by clarifying that executionId is the record ID from list/get, not a workflow ID, and reinforces the accepted types. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'stable execution ID' and prevents a common 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 uses a specific verb ('Request cancellation') and a clear resource ('one stoppable execution') with explicit statuses (new, unknown, waiting, or running). It also distinguishes the tool from sibling execution tools by focusing on cancellation rather than deletion, listing, or retrying.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: executionId must come from n8n_executions_list or get, not a workflow ID, and executions already terminal are rejected. It states prerequisites (unsafe mode and stop permission) and implies the tool is for non-terminal executions. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative for other operations, leaving a slight gap.

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