run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully explains image upload behavior, waiting/downloading, the COMFY_MAX_WAIT cap, and fallback polling via get_job, but it omits side effects, permissions, and what run_workflow returns when it does not wait.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses compact parameter-specific lines. Examples are purposeful and there is no redundant prose.

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?

This is a complex seven-parameter execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to do more. It covers most important inputs and polling behavior, but omits download_dir semantics and does not clarify the return/job model when wait_seconds is zero.

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. It does so well for set, images, enable, bypass, and wait_seconds with concrete examples, though it leaves download_dir and the obvious name parameter unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a saved workflow with your inputs.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from list/describe workflow tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar-sounding run_judged sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by requiring a saved workflow name and by the wait_seconds note, which says to poll get_job instead of waiting. However, it does not state when to choose run_workflow versus run_judged or other execution siblings.

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