Just because I don't think there's a clear enough answer to your proposal that $n$ might be the energy level (as in $E_n$). No that's the wrong parameter to be increasing to get better precision. The equivalent to the $n$ in the Stirling approximation is the number of terms in the perturbative expansion. I.e. first order energy perturbation ($n=1$), second order ($n=2$), etc. Although most people don't go beyond second order energy perturbation in QM anyway because even if it was convergent the terms get complicated and difficult to compute.
So if you're using $n$'th order perturbation theory to compute the perturbed energy levels of a system, as you increase $n$, at some point the terms will start getting bigger rather than smaller, and you'll know that your answer is getting less, not more precise.
As was discussed in the other answer, the optimal choice for $n$ will depend on how big your perturbation is. Roughly speaking, I'd guess you can use first order perturbation theory to see how big the perturbations are, then the nominal energy level differences over the size of the perturbation is the order of magnitude of the optimal $n$.