comfy_launch_server

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by explaining that launch blocks when a healthy endpoint is connected unless allow_parallel=True, and that background=True runs as a detached daemon while background=False blocks until exit. It also mentions mutation requires confirm. This adds valuable context without contradicting 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 structured into a clear opening paragraph and a bullet-like Args list with concise per-parameter explanations. The opening paragraph is information-dense and front-loaded with the most critical constraint (no implicit 8188 fallback). It is slightly long but every sentence adds value; the Args list is efficient and scannable.

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's complexity (7 parameters, mutation, process launch), the description is complete. It covers launch blocking semantics, parallel execution, workspace selection, and argument forwarding. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. The description fully compensates for low schema coverage and provides comprehensive guidance for a process-spawning tool.

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 explain parameters, and it does. Every parameter (background, port, host, workspace, extra_args, allow_parallel, confirm) is described with concrete semantic meaning and even examples for extra_args (e.g., ['--listen', '0.0.0.0', '--cpu']). This far exceeds the baseline of 3 given zero coverage.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb 'Start' and resource 'ComfyUI workspace via comfy-cli'. It explicitly states the primary function and distinguishes it from siblings like comfy_stop_server (which stops) and comfy_restart (which restarts). The mention of 'explicitly selected' and 'no implicit 8188 fallback' further clarifies scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance, including the requirement for explicit workspace and port, and the condition for allow_parallel. It also implicitly differentiates from other lifecycle tools by naming the prevention of accidental parallel processes. However, it does not name alternative tools directly, but the lack of an implicit fallback and the parallel launch behavior give clear usage context.

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