comfy_validate_workflow

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

Annotations already establish the tool is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavior: the six-pass validation sequence, automatic detection of ComfyUI editor-format, and short-circuiting with a re-export instruction, giving agents a clear mental model of execution.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear pass list. Every sentence adds value, and the code-format notation for nodes/links is concise.

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 that an output schema exists and the workflow parameter is open-ended (any object), the description covers the essential behavior: validation passes, pre-pass handling, and the return type. It does not exhaustively explain each pass, but the structured report schema likely provides those details, making the description sufficient.

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 only parameter, 'workflow', is described in the schema as a generic object with 0% coverage. The description adds that it can be a ComfyUI editor-format (top-level nodes/links arrays) or presumably a native workflow, and that the pre-pass will detect this. However, it does not detail the expected structure of a native workflow or the ValidationReport fields (though output schema exists).

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 it 'Validate a workflow with a 6-pass check' and returns a structured ValidationReport, which specifies the action and output. The mention of a pre-pass for ComfyUI editor-format distinguishes it from validation-related siblings like comfy_validate_before_queue.

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 context for when this tool is used by enumerating the six validation passes and the special pre-pass for editor-format workflows, implying comprehensive validation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or explain when NOT to use it, though the pre-pass serves as a form of exclusion for editor-format inputs by instructing re-export.

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