comfy_delete_history

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds the confirmation behavior: 'If False, the tool asks for explicit confirmation via elicitation before proceeding. Pass True to skip the prompt.' This is critical operational context that annotations do not provide. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., irreversible removal of associated outputs) beyond the generic 'Destructive' label, though the annotation already covers destructive intent.

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 two concise sentences followed by a clear parameter breakdown. It front-loads the purpose immediately ('Delete a specific history entry.') and includes only essential information about the confirm behavior without extraneous detail. Each sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the operation, the parameters, and the confirmation nuance. An output schema exists (not shown) to handle return values, and annotations capture safety traits. No missing information is apparent for the agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool's effect.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is solely responsible for explaining parameters. It fully explains both: prompt_id as 'The ID of the prompt execution to delete' and confirm with its default behavior and effect on confirmation elicitation. This goes beyond the schema's bare type definitions and provides necessary semantic depth.

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 action 'Delete a specific history entry' with the resource being a specific entry, using the verb 'Delete'. It distinguishes from siblings like comfy_clear_history (which likely clears all) by specifying 'specific', and comfy_get_history/search_history are non-destructive. The purpose is unambiguous and uniquely identifies the tool's function.

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 usage (delete a specific entry) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as comfy_clear_history for mass deletion or comfy_search_history for lookup. It lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, falling short of the clarity needed to differentiate choices among siblings.

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