comfy_emergency_stop

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes beyond by detailing exactly what is destroyed: 'will cancel all running and pending jobs.' It also explains the confirmation elicitation behavior for the confirm parameter, adding useful context not in 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 well-structured with a brief summary, a warning, and parameter explanation. It is concise but has minor redundancy in repeating 'destructive' in both the summary and warning. Overall, each part 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 tool with one parameter, the description covers the purpose, destructive side effects, and parameter behavior. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. It is complete enough to guide an agent 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 only provides a boolean with default false, but the description fully explains the semantics: 'If False, the tool asks for explicit confirmation via elicitation before proceeding. Pass True to skip the prompt.' This adds critical meaning and use-case context beyond the bare schema.

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 actions: 'interrupt current job, clear queue, and free VRAM.' It uses a specific verb and resource combination, and the phrase 'emergency stop' distinguishes it from siblings like comfy_interrupt or comfy_free_vram.

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 for emergency situations but does not explicitly compare alternatives like comfy_interrupt or comfy_clear_queue. The confirm parameter guidance is helpful, but it lacks direct exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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