modify_workflow

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return value (modified workflow JSON and new node IDs), but lacks details on side effects, validation behavior, error handling, permissions, or reversibility of operations.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second lists the supported operations and return value. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple operation types, array of operations), the description covers the basic purpose and return value but omits ordering constraints, validation, error cases, and does not leverage an output schema. It is adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists operation types but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. It adds minimal additional meaning.

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 tool applies modification operations to an existing ComfyUI workflow, lists five specific operations (set_input, add_node, remove_node, connect, insert_between), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workflow or validate_workflow.

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 implies usage when modifying a workflow, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The list of supported operations gives some context for selection but no comparative guidance.

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