comfy_run_with_inputs

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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond annotations: the caller's workflow dict is deep-copied and not mutated, images are uploaded to ComfyUI's input directory, labels patch matching widgets, and the response includes an auto_snapshot field. This adds substantial non-obvious context and is consistent with 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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then transitions into a tight Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes operational or semantic value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complex tool with nested objects, zero schema-level parameter descriptions, and meaningful side effects, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, parameter behavior, mutation safety, queueing semantics, and a custom return field. The presence of an output schema makes the explicit return explanation acceptable and useful.

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 carries the full parameter-documentation burden. It compensates well: it explains workflow as an API-format dict with copy semantics, inputs as label-to-local-path mappings with explicit targeting and wildcard patching, and front with queue-position behavior. All three parameters gain meaningful semantics 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 opens with a specific action chain—"Upload local images, inject as workflow inputs, then queue"—and explicitly frames the tool as combining the three-step img2img/inpaint flow into one call. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfy_queue_prompt, comfy_upload_image, and comfy_set_widget_value.

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 clearly signals when this tool is useful: when a caller wants to perform the upload + patch + queue workflow for local images in one step, especially for img2img/inpaint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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