restart_comfyui

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

With zero annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it discloses destructive behavior ('Kills the process tree', 'Anything queued or rendering is lost'), operational sequencing (captures config, waits for port free, polls for bounded readiness), and preconditions ('requires ComfyUI-Manager present and its security level permitting the reboot'). This level of side-effect and failure disclosure is exemplary for a mutation tool.

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 logically organized by action and front-loaded with 'Control the lifecycle of the ComfyUI server process', but it is dense, with deeply nested clauses and a bulky middle paragraph on the restart path that mix remote behavior, env vars, and recovery rationale. The leading dash and double-hyphen formatting is also slightly awkward. It earns its length better than most, but tighter scoping would help scannability.

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 side-effecting control tool with three actions, local/remote differences, an env-var override, and a reference to the sibling 'queue' tool, the description covers the operational surface remarkably well: prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, and boundaries (bounded readiness, local-only for start/stop). The only gap is that no return/response format is described, though for a fire-and-forget process control tool this is a minor omission.

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% for the single 'action' parameter, so the 3-baseline applies, but the description goes well beyond the schema by explaining consequences of each enum value (remote vs local applicability, state persistence across stop/start, readiness polling) and the environment-variable override behavior. The schema's own param description is also solid, making this a well-covered parameter end-to-end.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Control the lifecycle of the ComfyUI server process' — and enumerates three clearly bounded actions (restart, start, stop) with distinct behavioral contracts. The trigger conditions (reload custom nodes, WEDGED job escalation, externally managed installs) distinguish this lifecycle tool from siblings like 'queue' or 'comfy_cli' without needing to name them all.

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?

Explicitly frames when each action is appropriate: restart is 'the normal way to reload newly installed custom nodes' and 'the escalation when queue (action:"cancel") reports a job WEDGED', explicitly naming the sibling tool. It also gives conditional alternatives (COMFYUI_RESTART_COMMAND for containers/systemd, ComfyUI-Manager over HTTP for remote) with exact prerequisites, leaving no doubt which path applies where.

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