n8n_delete_workflow

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the deletion is permanent but a local snapshot is saved first, and restoration goes into a new workflow. This goes beyond what the annotation alone communicates.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core destructive action is front-loaded, and the recovery note follows immediately, making the description easy to parse in one pass.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential behavioral implications: permanence, snapshot safety, and restoration path. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('workflow'), and a clear modifier ('permanently'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, update, activate, or deactivate workflows.

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 makes clear this tool is for permanent deletion and explains the recovery path via n8n_rollback_workflow. It does not explicitly contrast with n8n_deactivate_workflow or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for a delete intent.

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