gate_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key traits: this is a blocking call that waits for execution and returns image URLs plus metadata. It omits failure behavior — what happens if the graph is invalid, if the queue is busy, or what a timeout produces — which matters for a long-running submit-and-wait tool with a configurable 180s default timeout.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: submit, wait, return. It could only be improved by spending one clause on when to prefer a sibling wrapper instead.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully states the return values (image URLs and metadata) and covers both params at full schema coverage. However, with zero annotations and a nested object parameter, the definition should say more about error/timeout outcomes and side effects (enqueueing work on a shared instance) to be complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by framing 'prompt' as a raw workflow graph submitted to a running instance and by tying the wait behavior to the timeout, but it adds no format or validation detail beyond the 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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Submit a raw ComfyUI prompt workflow graph to the running instance' — plus the two follow-on actions (wait, return images). The word 'raw' implicitly separates it from the higher-level gate_txt2img/gate_img2img siblings, but it never names them, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and nothing points the agent to gate_txt2img or gate_img2img for simpler cases. The term 'raw ... workflow graph' implies this is the low-level escape hatch when a full graph is needed, which is meaningful but left for the agent to infer.

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