Stop n8n Execution

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds the constraint that the execution must be 'running,' but it does not explain what happens after stopping (e.g., status change, reversibility, or side effects). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context but lacks behavioral nuance.

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 short and front-loaded: a single purpose sentence followed by a one-item Args list. Each word earns its place, and the structure is clear and efficient for such a simple tool. The Args section is redundant with the schema but not excessively verbose, maintaining high conciseness.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and not describing return values, the tool's simplicity (one parameter and clear intent) makes the context adequate. Annotations cover the mutation and non-destructive nature, and the description specifies the applicable execution state. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on post-stop behavior, but this is not critical for a straightforward stop action.

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% for the single parameter 'id,' and the description's 'Args - id (string): Running execution ID to stop' completely mirrors the schema description. The description adds no new meaning or detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Stop a currently running execution.' The verb 'Stop' with resource 'execution' is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like n8n_delete_execution and n8n_retry_execution by targeting a running execution rather than deleting or retrying it.

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 implicit context by specifying 'currently running execution,' suggesting it should be used only for active executions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative operations like deletion or retry. There is no clear exclusion or alternative phrasing that would guide an agent in choosing this over similar tools.

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