enqueue_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns immediately and does not wait, which is the key behavioral trait. It could mention that it adds a job to the queue, but the core behavior is transparent. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: action and output, non-blocking behavior, and follow-up tool suggestions. No wasted words or repetition.

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 submission tool with 2 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, return information, and next steps. It could mention the expected workflow format (API format) in more detail, but the schema already provides that. Overall adequate.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'workflow' or 'disable_random_seed'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit a ComfyUI workflow for execution') and the immediate return of 'prompt_id and queue position'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_job_status and generate_image by explicitly noting it does not wait for completion.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (to submit and get immediate prompt_id/queue position) and provides alternatives: 'Use get_job_status to check progress later, or get_history to retrieve results and images after completion.' This provides clear context and exclusions.

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