comfy_download_model

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that `confirm` is required to explicitly approve the network download and filesystem write, and that the tool writes to `models/<folder>`. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the approval mechanism and the write operation, though it does not detail rate limits or error handling.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose and then lists each argument with a brief, relevant explanation. The format is easy to scan, with no filler words or redundant content. Every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 an output schema (so return values are handled) and the annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for effective use. It covers all parameters, explains the required confirmation, and gives practical examples for folder values. It does not mention error scenarios or prerequisites beyond the CivitAI token, but overall it is complete for a straightforward download operation.

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 must fully compensate. It does: each parameter is explained meaningfully—`url` (direct download URL), `folder` (subfolder under models with common values enumerated), `civitai_api_token` (for gated downloads), `workspace` (optional path), and `confirm` (explicit confirmation). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's simple type/title information, though it could be more explicit about defaults and optionality.

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: 'Download a model via `comfy model download`'. It specifies the action (download), the resource (model), and the exact command, distinguishing it from sibling tools like comfy_download_batch (batch download) and comfy_list_models (listing). The verb and resource are unambiguous, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 provides some usage context: it specifies that CivitAI links require a `civitai_api_token`, and it lists common folder values (checkpoints, loras, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., comfy_download_batch for batch downloads) or when not to use it. The guidance is practical for parameter usage but lacks explicit selection criteria or exclusions.

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