set_extension_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains the exact filesystem changes (rename, Manager 3.x vs older spelling), the idempotent 'state, not a toggle' behavior, and the safety profile (nothing downloaded, no network needed). It does not, however, describe error handling or return format, and an output schema exists but the description doesn't clarify what the caller receives, though the schema likely covers that.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and safety argument, which is good. However, it is somewhat verbose and repetitive, with lengthy sentences about Manager compatibility and safety that could be tightened. Every sentence roughly earns its place, but the density is higher than necessary for a two-parameter tool.

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 no annotations, a simple two-parameter schema, and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly: it explains the effect, the idempotency, the naming compatibility, and when to choose it. The main gap is lack of explicit return value description, but the output schema likely handles that.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'name' accepts a folder name, registry id, or distinctive substring, and that 'enabled' is a boolean (True to turn on, False to turn off). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify exact matching rules or partial-match ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Turn an installed node pack on or off') and immediately explains the underlying mechanism ('a single rename inside custom_nodes'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like install_extension, update_extension, and repair_extension because it emphasizes that nothing is downloaded and no package moves.

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 recommends when to use this tool ('the one worth reaching for first') and gives a concrete scenario ('When a pack breaks ComfyUI's startup, this is the fix'). It also contrasts with ComfyUI-Manager's HTTP route, effectively positioning itself against an alternative.

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