modify_workflow

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

Discloses return value (modified workflow JSON and new node IDs), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., in-place modification vs. copy, destructive potential, required permissions, error handling). No annotations provided to compensate.

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, efficient listing of operations, and clear return description. No redundancy.

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 the complexity of the tool (multiple operation types with detailed schema), the description covers the main purpose and return. However, it could include more behavioral context (e.g., order of operations, failure semantics). No output schema exists.

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. Description adds marginal value by noting return behavior, but does not explain parameter details beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Clearly states the tool applies modification operations to an existing ComfyUI workflow and lists the five supported operation types. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_workflow and validate_workflow.

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?

Implies usage for modifying existing workflows, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor when not to use it (e.g., for creating new workflows or validation).

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