comfyui_interrupt

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses specific behavioral traits: the global vs. targeted interruption scope and the silent no-op for queued-but-not-running prompts. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent predict side effects. No contradiction with 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 compact and well-structured with clear bullet-like lines distinguishing the two modes. Every sentence contributes essential information with no fluff or repetition.

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 is fully self-contained for a tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. It covers the main behavior, both modes, and the edge case of queued prompts, making it complete for effective selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the meaning and effect of prompt_id: absence triggers global interrupt, presence triggers targeted interrupt, and the queued-but-not-running case. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema field.

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 function: 'Interrupt the currently executing workflow.' It specifies two modes (global and targeted) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_job or clear_queue. The verb+resource structure is 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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('Without prompt_id: global interrupt', 'With prompt_id: targeted'), including an important caveat about queued prompts silently no-opping. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but it offers clear usage context within the tool itself.

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