comfy_install_node

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that installation goes through Comfy Manager and the underlying command. However, it does not disclose side effects like network access, environment mutation, or what happens when confirm is false or omitted—important for an installation operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line summary, useful implementation detail, concrete examples, and a short argument list. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 moderately complex install tool with an output schema, the description covers the core semantics, package naming conventions, and CLI foundation. It could mention prerequisites or alternative tools, but the available annotation context and output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 0%, but the description compensates by naming and explaining all three parameters: name, workspace, and confirm. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about defaults or interactions between confirm and the CLI behavior.

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 action ('Install a custom node') and gives the exact CLI command used (`comfy node install <name>`). It also provides concrete name-format examples, making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous and differentiating it from install/workflow-dependency siblings.

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 conveys useful context such as using Comfy Manager and typical GitHub-slug naming, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like comfy_install_workflow_deps or comfy_list_installed_nodes. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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