install_panel

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is local-only, targets nightly, refuses to modify dev installs, requires a restart after mutation, and is auto-installed on MCP server load. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and each sentence provides useful detail. It is slightly long but necessary given the behavioral nuances. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, actions, constraints (local-only, dev install), and side effects (restart required). No missing information.

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% with a single parameter 'action' having an enum and description. The description adds minor behavioral context (e.g., 'never errors' for status) but largely repeats what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds some but not substantial extra meaning.

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 identifies the tool as managing a specific ComfyUI sidebar panel, naming the registry and repo. It distinguishes from install_custom_node by noting it uses the same path, but could be more explicit about when to use this tool over that sibling.

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 states the actions (status, install, update, reinstall) and provides context on when each is appropriate (e.g., status never errors, install/update refuse on dev symlink). It does not, however, compare to reinstall_custom_node or explicitly advise against using other tools.

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