save_output

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: ComfyUI save nodes reject absolute paths, the tool relocates output files, dest_dir defaults to COMFYUI_MOUNT_DIR, and the return contains saved_paths and dest_dir. The only mild gap is not detailing overwrite semantics, but that is covered enough by the parameter names and defaults.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives the 'why', and the subsequent sentences explain usage and return value. Every sentence adds useful information, and nothing feels repetitive or padded.

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?

The description is nearly complete for a 7-parameter tool, covering the major options and the return shape, and an output schema exists. It could be slightly more explicit about how overwrite and type/subfolder combine with filename, but the essential knowledge an agent needs to run the command is present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter-load. It explains prompt_id, filename, dest_dir, and dest_filename well, and refers to subfolder/type inferring their usage. It does not explicitly define every parameter (e.g., overwrite), but the core selection logic is clear and materially more helpful than the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear action and scope: 'Copy a finished render out of ComfyUI's output tree into a folder the caller can reach.' It identifies the source, the destination constraint, and the rationale, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs from purely viewing or uploading content.

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 gives strong context on why relocation is needed and explains the two invocation modes: pass a prompt_id for all outputs or a filename for a single file. It does not explicitly list when to choose alternatives, but the use case is well scoped and the two modes are clearly contrasted.

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