upload_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions source options and destinations but lacks details on idempotency, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, error handling, or return values. For a tool that performs I/O, this is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second enumerates source and destination options. Every sentence adds 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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical information such as the return value (e.g., URL or success status), error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., authentication). For a complex tool with nested objects, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about source options ('asset_id or local path') and destination choices ('S3, Azure Blob, HTTP PUT, HuggingFace'), which is helpful but largely redundant with the schema's nested structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and identifies the resource ('generated ComfyUI output') and scope ('to cloud storage'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_image, upload_audio, and upload_video by focusing on generic outputs.

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 usage for uploading output files, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload_image for images). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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