comfy_clear_queue

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the confirmation flow (If False, asks via elicitation; True skips prompt) which is not in annotations. It also reiterates the destructive nature, reinforcing the destructiveHint. This is valuable and does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the action and a brief Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and the parameter explanation is minimal yet complete. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy beyond the useful 'Destructive.' warning.

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 has only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description fully covers the core functionality and the parameter behavior. It defines exactly what is cleared (pending prompts) and the confirmation protocol. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides only the parameter name and type with no description (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains the 'confirm' parameter: its default (false), its effect (asks for confirmation vs skips), and the elicitation mechanism. This compensates completely for the schema gap.

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's purpose: clearing all pending prompts from the queue. It uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('all pending prompts from the queue'), and distinguishes it from siblings like comfy_get_queue (retrieval) and comfy_interrupt (interrupting current runs).

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 when to use the tool (to clear the queue) but does not explicitly reference alternative tools or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools for queue management, adding exclusionary guidance would improve it, but the core usage is clear.

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