call_instance_proxy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the read/write risk profile is covered separately. The description adds useful context about calling a live instance and a common side effect (unloading models to free GPU memory), but it doesn't go beyond that into broader behavioral detail like failure modes or mutability of the instance.

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?

Three compact, information-dense sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the route contract is given, and the practical usage example is placed last so the critical guidance comes first.

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 covers the prerequisite (getting the instance_id), the route, and a common realistic use case. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't explain the return value, but for a proxy call tool this is acceptable; the main missing piece is any note about error handling or response shape.

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 description coverage, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: instance_id is sourced from get_request_status, comfy_backend_path is illustrated by 'api/free', request_body is shown with a concrete JSON payload, and deployment_id appears in the route. This gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Call a ComfyUI backend endpoint on a live instance,' and it backs this with the exact POST route pattern. It also gives a concrete common target ('api/free') that distinguishes this proxy-call action from the surrounding status/management siblings.

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?

It gives explicit contextual guidance: obtain instance_id from get_request_status once status is in_progress, and use api/free to free GPU memory. It provides a clear when-to-use scenario, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to an alternative.

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