comfy_send_to_td

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

The description mentions atomicity and sidecar manifest, which adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true). However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'sidecar manifest' contains or any side effects beyond that. Since annotations already indicate it's not read-only and is idempotent, the description adds some but not extensive insight.

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 concise, with a one-line purpose and bulleted argument list. No redundant text.

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?

It covers the purpose, parameters, and some behavior (atomic, sidecar). It could mention when to use it over comfy_get_output_image or other send_* tools, but the naming and description make it clear. Given the sibling context, it's adequate.

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?

All three parameters are described clearly: filename (required, from ComfyUI outputs), subfolder (optional, in ComfyUI outputs), prompt_id (optional, for history metadata). Schema coverage is 100% and the description adds meaningful context for each.

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's purpose: downloading an image and saving it for TouchDesigner consumption, with atomicity and sidecar manifest. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like comfy_get_output_image (which likely just fetches an image) and comfy_download_batch (which downloads multiple files).

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: it's for sending images to TouchDesigner. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. The naming pattern (comfy_send_to_*) suggests a family of tools for different destinations, so it's fairly clear, but there's no explicit exclusion.

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