create_deployment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as min_instances being billable when greater than zero, queue_size triggering scaling, and keep_warm_duration acting as an idle timeout. It omits some details like reversibility, but the cost/side-effect transparency is solid.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and endpoint, then a one-sentence exclusion for LoRA, followed by a compact scannable Args block. Every sentence earns its place and no space is wasted on fluff.

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 an 8-parameter create operation with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, all parameter constraints, billing implications, and the key LoRA exclusion. It only omits minor operational context such as the expected response shape or prerequisites like the workflow being published, but these are not critical for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It fully compensates by documenting all eight parameters, providing ranges ('0..30', '1..60', '>= 0'), enumerating valid hardware values, and giving an example version label. This is exactly what an agent needs to call 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Serverless API (ComfyUI) deployment.' It clearly identifies the operation, the backing endpoint, and distinguishes this creation tool from the dataset, model, and training tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when not to use this tool: 'For LoRA deployments, create via the runcomfy.com UI instead.' This gives a clear exclusion and alternative while the opening sentence establishes the standard use case for non-LoRA ComfyUI deployments.

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