run_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions that private models need an access_key, which is useful auth context, but it does not explain blocking versus asynchronous behavior, timeout behavior, cost/credit implications, failure handling, or how results are retrieved.

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 and front-loaded: the action is stated first, followed by the critical params format. Every sentence adds concrete information, with no filler.

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?

This is a complex nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to carry more context. It covers the core params shape but omits important operational details such as whether execution is synchronous, what wait=false does, how timeouts are handled, and what the caller receives.

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 must compensate. It usefully defines the required params object as a node map with classType and inputs, and notes the access_key requirement for private models, but it does not explain the wait or timeout_sec parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run a ComfyUI-style workflow on TAMS. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling run_workflow_template or explain when arbitrary workflows are appropriate.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_workflow_template, generate_image, or image_to_image. The agent can infer that it runs a provided node map, but no selection criteria or prerequisites are stated.

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