switch_comfyui_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it is exceptionally thorough. It flags the operation as DESTRUCTIVE, explains that it stashes uncommitted changes, moves the checkout, reinstalls dependencies, refuses while ComfyUI is running, requires per-call user consent, and shares a lock with update_comfyui. It also clarifies that restart_required is always True. This is strong behavioral transparency for a destructive operation.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, wrapped operation, parameter semantics, canonical flow, gotchas, and return value. It is front-loaded with the destructive warning and the rollback purpose, and it uses clear formatting with headers and code blocks. Nothing is redundant or ornamental.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description discloses the return shape ('{"switched_to", "result", "restart_required": True}') and the fact that restart_required is always True. It also covers prerequisites, exclusions, locking behavior, and the canonical sequence involving sibling tools. For a destructive, state-changing operation, it is remarkably complete.

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 explain the parameters, and it does comprehensively. It enumerates valid version values ('nightly', 'latest', release tags with or without leading v) and states that anything else is refused before any subprocess runs. It also explains confirm_switch semantics in detail, including the no-prompt fallback and the requirement that it only be set when the user has actually agreed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move the LOCAL ComfyUI install to a specific version.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly stating that it is used to roll BACK while 'update_comfyui only moves forward.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from related tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Use to roll BACK — update_comfyui only moves forward'). It also provides a canonical flow ('stop_comfyui -> switch_comfyui_version -> launch_comfyui -> server_info') and clear gotchas such as refusing while ComfyUI is running and sharing update_comfyui's lock. An agent knows exactly when to call it and what prerequisites must be met.

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