import_workflow

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

The description communicates that this is an import action that modifies the session and that it can read from either pasted JSON or a named workflow. It does not disclose whether importing replaces/merges the current session workflow, what happens if both parameters are supplied, or error behavior on invalid JSON. Annotations don't contradict it, but they don't carry much behavioral weight either.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, then the two parameter modes, then the usage purpose. The final phrase 'porting outside work' is slightly awkward, but each sentence contributes useful information without bloating the description.

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?

Given only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It explains the two mutually exclusive input options and names the companion list_workflows lookup. The main remaining gaps are precedence if both parameters are set and how an invalid or missing workflow is handled, but these are minor for choosing and invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains exactly what `workflow_json` accepts (UI format with nodes/links or API format) and what `name` refers to (a workflow from ComfyUI's browser, obtainable via list_workflows). This is precisely the information an agent needs beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the verb and resource: import an existing workflow into the session, and it distinguishes the two supported input modes. It could more explicitly differentiate itself from create_workflow or port_workflow, but 'existing' workflow and 'import... into the session' make the core purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: for beautifying, diagnosing, or porting outside work, and it tells the agent that the `name` path is preferred for large files. It points to list_workflows for resolving workflow names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling to prefer instead, but the guidance is reasonably concrete.

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