update_custom_node

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the use of ComfyUI-Manager HTTP API with a cm-cli subprocess fallback, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or consequences of updating (e.g., potential breaking changes).

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary words. Main action is front-loaded, and critical option ('all') is highlighted immediately. Perfectly concise.

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?

Moderate complexity tool without output schema. Description covers main operation but lacks return value details or error scenarios. It also does not specify if the tool provides any feedback on success/failure, which an agent needs to know.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor value by explaining 'all' for the id parameter, but mode, channel, and useCmCli are adequately described in the schema. The description's mention of the fallback for useCmCli is already in the schema parameter description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates a custom node pack, with the specific addition of using 'all' to update every pack. This differentiates from siblings like install_custom_node and reinstall_custom_node.

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?

Description mentions the 'all' option and the fallback to cm-cli, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar tools like install or reinstall. Guidance is implied but not direct.

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