comfy_queue_prompt

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation aspect is known. The description adds that it returns a QueueAck and mentions parameter behavior (e.g., front insertion) but does not disclose any additional side effects, permissions, or error conditions. It is not contradictory to annotations, but adds limited behavioral context beyond the 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 a single concise paragraph with a clear opening statement and an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then lists parameters efficiently without any unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 6 parameters and nested objects, but has an output schema. The description explains all parameters and the return type (QueueAck), which covers the key usage aspects. It does not go into workflow structure expectations or error handling, but given the output schema and annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It clearly explains each parameter: workflow (dict to queue), front (insert at front), workflow_id (stable UUID), workflow_version_id (version UUID), partial_execution_targets (output node IDs), extra_data (metadata). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 queues a workflow for execution and returns a structured QueueAck. It uses a specific verb (queue) with a clear resource (workflow), and it is distinct from sibling tools like comfy_validate_workflow or comfy_cancel_run.

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 this is the main tool for submitting workflows for execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., validate first) or mention prerequisites. It gives no exclusion criteria or alternative tool guidance.

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