stop_comfyui

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (no JSON envelope), the synthesized success dict, the lock-sharing behavior, and the error condition. It also reveals the destructive action of killing the recorded pid, which is a significant behavioral trait.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: action, ownership, output, concurrency. It is well-structured with a clear lead and a bullet point. It could be slightly more concise, but it avoids redundancy and front-loads the core purpose.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, limitations, error handling, concurrency behavior, and return format. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exist, but it does explain the wrapping of 'comfy stop' and ownership semantics, which provides context beyond the empty schema.

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 specific action (stop), the resource (LOCAL ComfyUI server), and the scope (launched by comfy-cli). It distinguishes from sibling tools like launch_comfyui and restart_comfyui by explicitly noting ownership semantics and the inability to stop other servers.

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 states when the tool is NOT appropriate (server started by desktop app or by hand) and explains the concurrency constraint with launch/restart. It gives clear conditions for refusal and error behavior, leaving no ambiguity about usage scenarios.

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