remove_extra_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the need for an exact path match and the restart requirement for active paths, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., what happens if the path is not found), permissions needed, or whether the removal affects only the YAML file or also deactivates the path in memory.

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 very concise at two sentences, achieving high efficiency. However, it lacks some context that could be structured more clearly, such as what the 'extra search-path YAML config' is or a brief explanation of the target parameter. Still, it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, exact match requirement, and restart note. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'target' parameter (though the schema does), what happens if the path does not exist, or whether the removal is persistent. Given the tool modifies configuration, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 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 removes a directory from a ComfyUI extra search-path YAML config. It uses the verb 'Remove' and identifies the resource as 'directory from a ComfyUI extra search-path YAML config'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_extra_path' by the opposite action, but does not explicitly name or contrast with them.

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 mentions that the path must match exactly and that restarting ComfyUI may be needed after removing an active path. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., editing the config file manually or using 'add_extra_path' for modifications). No guidance on prerequisites like choosing the correct target or config_path is provided.

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