validate_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks for issues, returns errors/warnings, and clarifies that the health parameter never affects the 'valid' flag. No side effects or destructive actions mentioned, but that's appropriate for a read-only validation.

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 that are efficient, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contain zero unnecessary 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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description clearly states it returns a list of errors and warnings, covers the health parameter nuance, and mentions the types of issues checked. No gaps.

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 both parameters. Description adds meaningful context beyond schema: for 'health' it clarifies it never affects 'valid', and for 'workflow' it specifies 'API format'. This is additional value.

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 validates a ComfyUI workflow without executing it, specifying checks for missing node types, broken connections, etc. This distinguishes it from execution tools and sibling tools like analyze_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?

The description implies use for pre-flight validation ('without executing it') but does not explicitly compare against alternatives like check_workflow_runtime or specify when not to use it.

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