comfy_set_widget_value

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

The description directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint: true. The tool sets a value, which is a mutation, yet the annotation claims read-only. This is a significant inconsistency. Furthermore, the description does not disclose side effects, such as whether the workflow dictionary is modified in place or returns a new instance, nor does it mention required permissions or limitations.

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 concise, with the primary action stated upfront. The 'Args' block is structured and avoids redundant wording, though it could be streamlined further by merging the action into a single sentence. It is not overly verbose and each word serves a 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?

The description covers the basic operation but lacks essential context. It does not explain what the tool returns (though an output schema exists), whether it modifies the input workflow in place, or any error conditions. Combined with the annotation contradiction, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool. More detail on expected behavior and side effects is needed.

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 description lists each parameter with a brief, human-readable explanation ('workflow: The workflow dictionary', 'node_id: ID of the node to modify'), which adds some clarity beyond the raw schema. However, given the schema has 0% description coverage, the description must compensate more heavily. It falls short by not specifying allowed types or value formats (e.g., 'value' could be any JSON type), and it does not clarify how widget_name maps to actual node inputs.

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: 'Set a widget value on a workflow node.' It specifies the target resource (workflow node) and the operation (set widget value), distinguishing it from nearby tools like comfy_add_node or comfy_connect_nodes. The name and description align, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether this is intended for modifying a node's inputs during workflow creation or for runtime updates. Without explicit context, an agent may misuse it.

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