auth_login

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses async background execution, fast return behavior, exact pending/completed/failed response shapes, same-URL repetition while pending, one-time state clearing, automatic reaping of stuck children, never returning secrets, and ComfyCliError failure modes. This goes far beyond basic tool descriptions.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers async behavior, response states, retry semantics, error handling, and fallback. The structure is logical and dense without 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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for correct invocation. It documents the full response lifecycle, the companion tool to use for confirmation, error conditions, and a fallback path. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool, interpret results, and handle failures without guessing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document beyond the empty schema. The baseline of 4 applies because with no params the description cannot add parameter-level detail and does not need to; it instead focuses its space on behavior and return semantics.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Start Comfy Cloud sign-in; returns an OAuth URL for the USER to open.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from auth_status by noting that auth_status is 'the authority on credentials' while this tool only reports how the login process ended, giving agents clear sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit usage flow: give the user login_url, let them finish in their browser, then confirm with auth_status. It warns that calling again while pending returns the same URL and that only one flow runs at a time, which is a clear when-not-to-call constraint. It also names manual 'comfy cloud login' as a fallback alternative.

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