comfy_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility of explaining that this is a potentially destructive operation. It discloses that it stops the process 'and everything under it,' that it deliberately avoids user-launched ComfyUIs, and that it can target even orphaned instances recorded on disk from before a restart. This is all substantive behavioral context beyond basic 'stops the process.'

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the core action, the ownership boundary, and a necessary edge-case about orphaned instancestarted before restart.

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?

For a zero-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, this description covers its main purpose, scope, limitations, and edge cases. The output schema is present, so there is no hidden expectation to explain return values, and nothing important for an agent to make the right call is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant operational context about what will be stopped but does not need to document argument semantics because there are none.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Stop the ComfyUI process that this server started, and everything under it.' It clearly distinguishes the target from related tools such as comfy_start, restart_comfy, and interrupt by focusing on stopping the whole managed process tree.

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 context for when this tool applies: it can only stop instances owned by this server, and the ownership test is explained sharply ('not whether something is answering the port'). It says when not to use it, but does not name alternative tools such as comfy_start or interrupt, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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