interrupt_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effects (queue polling, prompt removal), the motivated purpose (freeing GPU for the next job), and a config prerequisite (COMFYUI_HOST). It omits error behavior when nothing is running and does not explicitly flag that the running job's work is lost.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and layers optional behavior afterward with no filler. Slight repetition of the prompt_id condition between sentences but nothing that should be cut.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers action, scoping, cleanup side effect, and the host requirement. What is missing is modest: return/error semantics and confirmation the interrupt takes effect immediately.

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; the description largely restates them. It adds limited extra meaning, mainly the GPU-freeing rationale for cleanup_after_ms, which is also present in the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the currently running workflow on ComfyUI') and clarifies the optional scoping to a single prompt via prompt_id. The role is distinguishable from queue-mutating siblings like clear_queue, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete conditions: pass prompt_id to interrupt only that prompt, omit it to interrupt the current run, and set cleanup_after_ms only when prompt_id is provided. It does not call out when to prefer clear_queue/delete_queue_items over this tool, leaving that inference to the agent.

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