install_workflow_dependencies

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

With no annotations, the description transparently explains the full process: determining missing packs, resetting the queue, queuing installs, starting the worker, and reporting results. It also discloses the server-side execution and restart requirement. Minor omission: no mention of side effects on existing installed nodes.

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 efficient, with three focused sentences. The first sentence captures the main purpose, followed by supporting details and an important caveat. No redundancy or unnecessary content.

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 covers the tool's operation, output, and post-requisite (restart). Given no output schema, it adequately explains what the tool returns. Slightly more detail on the output format (e.g., report structure) would improve completeness.

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 no new information about the 'workflow' parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('ComfyUI workflow in API format'). The description implies the workflow is parsed, but that is expected.

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 'resolves and installs the custom node packs a ComfyUI workflow requires'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install_custom_node by focusing on workflow-level dependency resolution, and explicitly mirrors a CLI command, leaving no ambiguity.

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 context for usage: it operates via ComfyUI-Manager, works remotely or locally, and notes that a restart is typically needed. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like sync_node_dependencies or extract_workflow_dependencies.

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