publish_custom_node

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

Without annotations, the description covers all behavioral traits: validates pyproject.toml (required fields, refuses scaffold placeholder), publishes using API key from env variable, irreversible, creates/updates public version. Provides thorough transparency for a destructive action.

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?

Four sentences packed with essential information. Front-loaded with purpose and command. No wasted words; each sentence adds value. Very efficient.

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's purpose (publishing to a registry), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, irreversibility, validation, env variable usage, and local-only constraint. No missing information for a publishing action. Output schema not needed.

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 descriptions for both parameters are clear, and the description adds context like 'inside the pack directory' and that `path` overrides `name`. With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding beyond the schema. A 4 is appropriate.

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 publishes a local custom-node pack to the public Comfy Registry, referencing the command `comfy node publish`. It distinguishes from the sibling tool `scaffold_custom_node` by noting it is the last step and that scaffold is for creation. Also specifies local-only nature.

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 explicitly states this is the LAST step of the author loop and an IRREVERSIBLE action. It lists prerequisites (comfy-cli installed, REGISTRY_ACCESS_TOKEN set) and when not to use (meaningless for remote target). It directs to scaffold_custom_node for creation. Comprehensive guidance.

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