fix_custom_node

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

With no annotations, the description bears full weight. It discloses the two execution paths (HTTP API vs cm-cli subprocess) and a prerequisite (local ComfyUI install for cm-cli). It does not mention destructiveness, but repair inherently modifies state, which is implied.

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 efficient sentences: first states the core function and special case, second explains the underlying mechanisms. No extraneous text, front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with 4 parameters, one required, no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, parameter implications, and a key prerequisite. It could mention return values or side effects, but the core information is sufficient for an agent to decide usage.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the behavioral implications of the 'id' parameter ('all' vs single) and the 'useCmCli' parameter (forcing cm-cli, with conditions). This meaningfully supplements the 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 states the verb 'repair' and the resource 'ComfyUI custom node pack's install and Python dependencies', and distinguishes between single-pack and 'all' packs. It differentiates from sibling tools like install_custom_node or reinstall_custom_node by specifically addressing repair of existing installs.

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 gives context on when to use (repair needed) and mentions the different mechanisms for single vs all packs. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or compare with similar siblings like reinstall_custom_node, leaving some ambiguity.

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