add_extra_path

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it writes a config file (state modification), returns an updated view, and requires a restart to apply. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand side effects.

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 short, front-loaded sentences: action and resource, use case, and behavioral note. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and a post-action step (restart). It could mention error conditions or file creation behavior, but it is largely complete for a config-write 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all 6 parameters in detail. The description does not add new meaning beyond restating the operation's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds minimal value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Add a directory'), the resource ('ComfyUI extra search-path YAML config'), and the context. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'remove_extra_path' by focusing on addition.

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 explicitly says 'Use this for model categories such as checkpoints/loras/vae and...custom_nodes', providing clear usage context. It also notes the need to restart ComfyUI. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or mention alternatives, but the sibling names imply a removal counterpart.

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