comfyui_update_custom_node

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context about the restart flag: restarting ComfyUI after update and running a security audit on all installed nodes. It also explains return values, providing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and the core purpose is stated first. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section duplicates schema information rather than adding new value.

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 relatively simple update tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values sufficiently. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but given the schema completeness and the presence of an output schema, it is adequately complete.

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 detailed descriptions for both node_id and restart. The description's Args section essentially restates the schema without adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: 'Update a custom node pack to the latest version.' This uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('custom node pack'), and it distinctly separates this tool from siblings like install, uninstall, search, and audit.

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 implies that this tool is for updating custom nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., installing or uninstalling). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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