generate_node_skill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses network access, use of GITHUB_TOKEN, optional server dependency, and the overwrite behavior when writing to disk. This is transparent and helps the agent understand side effects and requirements.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the main action and then provides necessary details. While it could be slightly more terse, all sentences are informative and no unnecessary words are present.

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 the complexity (network access, optional server, optional file write) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: input forms, process steps, return value, and side effects. It does not detail error scenarios but is sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the types (Registry ID vs GitHub URL) for 'source' and clarifying that 'install_in' is optional, will create directories recursively, and overwrites existing files. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 defines the tool's purpose: generate a SKILL.md for a ComfyUI custom node pack, specifying the input types (Registry ID or GitHub URL) and the process (fetch README, scan mappings, optionally enrich with server info). It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on managing workflows, nodes, and ComfyUI operations.

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 the two acceptable input sources and notes that internet access is required. It also mentions the optional ComfyUI server enrichment. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the uniqueness of the tool and the provided context give sufficient guidance on when to use it.

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