install_custom_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: external cm-cli invocation, hard environment prerequisite (COMFYUI_PATH, ComfyUI-Manager), extra Python dependency ('rich'), and that a ComfyUI restart is required afterward. It does not cover failure behavior, idempotency, or where the nodes land, leaving significant gaps for a mutating install tool.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then prerequisites and the restart note. The 'rich' dependency sentence is a slightly awkward parenthetical but is genuinely necessary, so little is wasted.

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 3-param, no-output-schema install tool, the description supplies the essential operational context: prerequisites, dependency, and the mandatory restart to load nodes. Missing only error/rollback behavior and the meaning of mode/channel, which the schema partly covers.

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 100%, so 'node_names', 'mode', and 'channel' are already documented structurally. The description's examples for node naming add mild reinforcement but nothing about mode ('remote'/'local'/'cache') or channel semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Install one or more custom nodes') and names the mechanism (ComfyUI-Manager cm-cli). Concrete examples (ComfyUI-Blip, WAS-Node-Suite) and the contrasting sibling install_model make the scope unambiguous.

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?

Clearly frames the context in which this tool applies (custom node packs, via Manager) and lists prerequisites: COMFYUI_PATH set, ComfyUI-Manager present, and the 'rich' package installed. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or contrast it with alternatives like install_model, so it stops short of a 5.

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