comfy_interrupt

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

The description merely restates the action without additional behavioral details. Although the annotations declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds no insight into side effects, reversibility, or impact on the queue. It fails to go beyond what the annotation already conveys.

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 a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a clear purpose.

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 lack of parameters, an output schema exists, and the annotations cover safety, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling interruption tools and omits any statement about what happens to the prompt or queue after interruption, which keeps it from being more complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and per the rules, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter explanation because none are needed.

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 (interrupt) and target (currently executing prompt). It differentiates from sibling tools like cancel_run or emergency_stop by focusing specifically on interrupting the active prompt.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like comfy_cancel_run, comfy_cancel_jobs, or comfy_emergency_stop. The description offers no context on preferred scenarios or preconditions.

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