copy_output_to_input

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the copy action but doesn't mention whether existing files in the input directory will be overwritten, permission requirements, or error conditions. For a mutation-like tool, this lack of transparency is a notable gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The example is useful and adds context without being verbose. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, the schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. The description explains the purpose and main use cases. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior) and absence of annotations leaves gaps in understanding for a mutation 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter clearly described (e.g., filename examples, subfolder usage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a file from ComfyUI's output directory to input directory.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_image (which uploads external files) or get_result_images (which retrieves outputs). The phrase 'Makes generated files... available as inputs' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'For example, copy a generated image to use it in image_to_image, image_to_video, or run_api_node.' This implies when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not-to-use' bar.

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