comfyui_interrupt

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds the detail of global vs. prompt_id targeting and the HTTP method. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like unsaved state loss, which would be valuable for a destructive action.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action, though it could be expanded to include usage guidance without losing 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?

Given the destructive nature and optional parameter, the description covers the basic functionality but omits context like prerequisites or expected outcomes. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for lack of return value description.

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% from the tool description, so it must compensate. The description mentions 'globally or by prompt_id' which hints at the parameter's role, but does not explicitly explain the parameter name, type, or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 (interrupt), the resource (execution), and the two modes (global or by prompt_id). It distinguishes from sibling tools like manage_queue or submit_prompt by focusing on interruption.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios or provide conditional advice, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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