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

Annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) cover only the safety profile; the description adds substantial operational context: credits are actually spent, a one-tap image-edit permission per account is required, people in photos are permitted, results land in the Library and return libraryAssetId/resultUrl, and replay/re-attach semantics are described. The clientRequestId dedup rule usefully refines the coarse idempotentHint=false flag rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the quote-first rule, then progresses through prerequisites, permission, result, and recovery. Ten sentences is long, but nearly every sentence carries procedural weight for a paid, non-idempotent operation; a couple of clauses (e.g., 'people in photos are allowed', 'does not publish') could be trimmed.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description names the returned fields (libraryAssetId, resultUrl), covers the wallet-spend implication, the approval gate, the idempotency/replay contract, and the failure-recovery handoff. For a 5-required-param payment tool this is essentially complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description ties them to the workflow ('pass expectedCredits, pricingVersion and ownerApprovedPrice:true from the approved quote', 'save a UUID clientRequestId before calling'), which is helpful but largely restates what the schema specifies. Baseline 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Increase the resolution of one reviewed photo') and immediately differentiates itself from soclo_image_upscale_quote, soclo_image_recover, and the reference-prep tools. An agent can tell what this does and where it sits in the pipeline without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing (quote first, spend only after owner approval), the approval precondition ('ownerApprovedPrice:true from the approved quote'), and a clear when-not/alternative path ('after a lost result or unknown charge, use soclo_image_recover; never start a replacement purchase'). Nothing about routing is left to inference.

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