fix_custom_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two different operational mechanisms (HTTP API vs subprocess) and the local install requirement for certain modes. However, it does not mention potential side effects or what gets destroyed, but for a repair tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mode distinction, no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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, the description does not explain return values. However, it covers the core functionality, prerequisites, and two operational modes. A brief mention of expected outcome (success/failure) would improve completeness.

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 description adds extra context: explains how 'all' triggers a different pipeline and that useCmCli forces subprocess. This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic 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 tool repairs a ComfyUI custom node pack's install and Python dependencies, with a special 'all' mode. It distinguishes from sibling tools like install_custom_node or update_custom_node by focusing on repair, using specific verbs and resources.

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 explains when to use single-pack vs 'all' mode, and notes that 'all' and forced runs require a local ComfyUI install. It provides clear context on mechanism choices, though it could be more explicit about when not to use or alternatives.

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