dalle3_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds valuable context about parameter optionality and the required API key. But it doesn't disclose whether the call is synchronous, how errors are reported, or any rate limits or costs, leaving behavioral expectations incomplete.

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 sentences: purpose first, then key usage note. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler. The structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 has an output schema, so return values are covered there. The description includes purpose, auth requirement, and a clear alternative, which covers the main contextual needs. It falls short only in not contrasting with sibling image-generation tools, but the alternative statement compensates.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and defaults, so baseline is 3. The description adds aggregate information ('All parameters except prompt are optional') which is helpful but already derivable from the schema. No additional semantic or format details beyond schema.

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 a specific action ('Generate an image using DALL-E 3') and the provider ('Comfy.org API'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the model and provider, and explicitly redirects other providers to run_api_node().

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?

It gives an explicit alternative for other API providers ('use run_api_node() with list_api_nodes()') and states a prerequisite ('Requires COMFY_API_KEY'). However, it doesn't compare with sibling image tools like text_to_image or gpt_image_generate, so usage context is partial.

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