comfy_build_workflow

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: checkpoint family detection from params, auto-detection from first installed checkpoint, fallback to SD 1.5 when undetermined, and dispatch to family-specific builder. This enriches the agent's understanding of routing behavior without contradicting the read-only/idempotent hints.

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 longer than average but every section serves a purpose: the intent-by-family list is necessary for routing, and the Args section is direct. It front-loads the main purpose and stays well-structured. Slight verbosity in the family routing paragraph could be trimmed, but it's justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (multiple model families, intents, routing logic) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: routing, fallback, and arguments. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. The only missing piece is the `family` parameter, which keeps it from a 5.

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 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains `template` with concrete examples and describes `params` as optional overrides with checkpoint-specific routing semantics. However, it completely omits the `family` parameter from the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on that input. This is a clear gap given the absence of schema descriptions.

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: 'Build a ComfyUI workflow for an intent, routed to the detected model family.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate or apply_template, and the family-routing detail adds unique scope.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: given an intent and optional params, it builds a workflow routed by model family. It lists supported intents per family, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of the highest bar.

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