upload_input_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (uploads to input folder, returns a name for LoadImage) but does not mention overwriting behavior, file format limitations, or how the subfolder parameter affects the upload. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple upload tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. It lacks parameter details and edge-case disclosures, but the tool's complexity is low, and the description is sufficient for basic 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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'path' is somewhat inferable as the local file path, but 'subfolder' is entirely unexplained, including its relationship to the input folder and how it affects the returned name.

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 identifies the action: 'Upload a local image into ComfyUI's input folder'. It names the specific resource (local image, input folder) and the purpose ('so workflows can load it'). This distinguishes it from siblings like show_image or list_models.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to make a local image accessible to ComfyUI workflows. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple upload operation.

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