copy_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it performs a copy operation, but it does not disclose potential edge cases such as overwriting existing files, creating missing directories, or error handling. For a simple copy operation this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, clear sentence followed by a concrete example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every piece of text earns its place. There is no unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is largely complete: it states the source, destination, and operation. However, it could benefit from noting behavior like overwriting or directory creation, which would make it fully comprehensive for a file operation with no annotations.

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%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds an example with concrete paths, which reinforces the expected format but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (copy), the resource (image), the source (ComfyUI output), and the destination (a project location). This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image and check_status, which have different purposes.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: copying generated images from ComfyUI output to a project directory. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools make the workflow context obvious.

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