fix_custom_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses two execution methods and their prerequisites, and notes that forced cm-cli mode errors in remote mode. However, it omits details on side effects (e.g., if repair is destructive), return values, or error handling.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and every phrase adds information. No redundancy or filler.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and the two execution paths. It is sufficient for selecting and using the tool, but could mention what the tool returns or typical outcomes after repair.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'all' value for id, and contextualizing the mode and useCmCli parameters relative to the two execution methods. This goes 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 uses specific verb 'Repair' and resource 'custom node pack', and clearly distinguishes between single-pack and 'all' packs. It differentiates from sibling tools like install_custom_node or update_custom_node by focusing on repair of dependencies.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use single-pack vs 'all', and when the HTTP API vs cm-cli subprocess is used. It notes requirements (local ComfyUI install for cm-cli) and flags errors in remote mode. However, it does not explicitly state scenarios to avoid.

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