configure_manager

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: which actions take effect live, which require restart, and the underlying mechanism (HTTP API vs config.ini). It also notes the need for a known local ComfyUI path for config.ini actions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every sentence earns its place, efficiently conveying two modes of operation.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains behavior for both action categories, including live vs restart effects. It is complete for a configuration tool with two parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by categorizing actions (HTTP vs config.ini) and listing allowed values per action, beyond the schema's enums. This compensates for the schema's brief descriptions.

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 tool configures ComfyUI-Manager settings and explicitly distinguishes between HTTP API actions and config.ini fallback. It differentiates from sibling tools focused on workflows, models, etc.

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?

The description provides explicit context for when to use HTTP API vs config.ini actions, including prerequisites for config.ini fallback (local path, restart). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives but is clear enough.

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