comfy_sweep

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

The description discloses that it enqueues copies, registers with the job tracker, and returns prompt_ids for later monitoring. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive) to clarify the tool's side effects and interaction pattern, though it does not detail potential resource constraints or error behavior.

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 and well-structured, with a clear first sentence and a brief follow-up on use cases and integration. It avoids unnecessary detail and is easy to parse.

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 provides sufficient context for understanding the tool's role, including its relationship to the job tracker and watch_progress. It does not mention validation, error handling, or performance implications, but within the context of sibling tools, it gives enough to select and invoke 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?

The description does not adequately explain the parameters. It mentions 'widget' but the args are `node_id`, `param`, and `values`; it does not clarify that `param` refers to a widget name or how `values` maps to the multiple enqueues. The schema provides no descriptions, so the description should compensate but does not.

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's primary function: enqueue multiple copies of a workflow with different values for a single parameter. It also provides concrete use cases (seed, CFG, step, and denoise sweeps), making the 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 explicitly lists scenarios where this tool is useful (sweeps) and mentions integration with the job tracker and comfy_watch_progress. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternative tools like comfy_queue_prompt, though the use cases imply when to choose this over them.

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