Delete n8n Workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical context by stating 'This action is irreversible' and 'permanently delete', reinforcing the destructive aftermath. It also mentions the soft-delete alternative, which is valuable behavioral guidance beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a minimal Args list. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and irreversibility, the second provides a safer alternative. No fluff or 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 delete tool with a single required parameter, the description is complete. It covers the action, permanence, alternative, and the required argument. The lack of an output schema is acceptable for a delete operation, so no additional return-value explanation is needed.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter (id) with a description 'Workflow ID to permanently delete'. The description's Args section merely repeats this information without adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies due to 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 uses a specific verb 'permanently delete' and clearly identifies the resource ('a workflow by ID'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling n8n_archive_workflow by noting the irreversible nature, which directly addresses the soft-delete alternative.

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 provides explicit guidance by recommending n8n_archive_workflow for soft-delete instead, making the decision boundary between permanent deletion and archiving clear. This is a direct alternative and usage hint.

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