enqueue_workflow

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

The description clearly states the asynchronous behavior (returns immediately, does not wait for completion) and hints at the return format (prompt_id and queue position). It does not contradict any annotations (none provided). It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but for a queue submission tool, this is sufficient.

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 succinct sentences. First sentence states function and immediate effect; second sentence provides follow-up guidance. No wasted words.

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?

The description provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool: what it does, what it returns, and how to follow up. It lacks details on potential errors or validation, but given the tool's simplicity, it is complete enough.

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?

The parameter descriptions are already in the schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic information beyond stating the workflow format. Baseline 3 applies.

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 for execution), the resource (ComfyUI workflow), and the immediate return (prompt_id, queue position). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_job_status and get_history by explaining the async nature.

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 tells when to use this tool (to submit and get immediate IDs) and when to use sibling tools (get_job_status, get_history). It does not list explicit exclusions, but the guidance is clear.

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