How to use the running service

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: the instance will be destroyed, so renders must be retrieved beforehand, and the response follows a specific JSON envelope with ok/message/next_tool/next_args. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the core usage facts are front-loaded and the return format is summarized compactly. The first sentence is slightly list-like but still efficient and easy to scan.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the return envelope need not be fully explained. However, the tool has two required parameters with zero schema documentation and zero description coverage, and there is no guidance on which instance/template values to provide. For a tool that is essentially an instruction guide, this is a significant completeness gap.

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%, and the description does not mention instance_id or template at all. An agent cannot determine what values these parameters should take or how they affect the returned endpoint usage. The description completely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 enumerates what the tool provides: ComfyUI URL, SSH command, workflow POST instructions, and render retrieval. This makes the purpose concrete and understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_instance or get_logs, which prevents a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the service is 'running' and renders should be pulled 'before it is destroyed,' suggesting it is meant for an active instance near teardown. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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