generate_with_controlnet

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: returns prompt_id immediately, asset_id arrives via notification, unspecified params fall back to defaults, checkpoint and controlnet_model auto-resolve, control_image must be preprocessed, requires a running ComfyUI. No contradictions.

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, well-structured paragraph of six sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then systematically covers prerequisites, behavior, and requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers key aspects: async behavior, auto-resolution, prerequisites, and environment requirements. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise complete for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema by explaining fallback behavior for unspecified params, auto-resolution for checkpoint and controlnet_model, and the prerequisite that control_image must already be uploaded and preprocessed. This operational context is helpful.

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 generates an image conditioned by a ControlNet preprocessed image and a text prompt. It specifies the verb 'generate' and the resource 'image conditioned by ControlNet,' effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_image.

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 explicit prerequisites (upload control image first with upload_image) and clarifies when not to use the tool (if the control image isn't preprocessed). It implicitly differentiates from other generation tools by focusing on ControlNet, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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