upload_output

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the upload action and destination types but lacks details on mutation behavior (e.g., overwrite, idempotency), required permissions, or any side effects. The agent is left to infer these from context.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second adds necessary detail about sources and destinations. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 moderate complexity (multiple source and destination options) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential usage context. It lacks only minor details like authentication assumptions or behavior on conflicts.

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 by explaining the special path prefix 'COMFYUI_PATH/output' and listing the allowed destination types explicitly. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.

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 specifies the verb 'upload', the resource 'generated ComfyUI output', and explicitly lists possible sources (asset_id or path under COMFYUI_PATH/output) and destinations (S3, Azure Blob, HTTP PUT, HuggingFace). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_image or upload_video, which target different file types and destinations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any fallback options. While it implies usage for ComfyUI outputs, there is no clear directive.

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