veo_upsample

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the video must be in 'succeeded' state, returns a Task ID and upsampled video information including the new video URL. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., cost, processing time) but is sufficient for a straightforward upscale operation.

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 clear introductory sentence, bullet-pointed use cases, a critical note, and a return summary. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (implied by return description), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, and return value. It could mention authentication or rate limits, but the note about video state is crucial and the rest is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter described. The description adds value by clarifying the video_id field as the 'id' from video data (not task_id) and listing action enum meanings. The return information is also mentioned, aiding the agent in understanding what to expect.

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 upsamples a generated video to higher resolution (1080p, 4K) or converts to GIF. It uses a specific verb ('Upsample') and resource ('a generated video'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like veo_text_to_video or veo_image_to_video by focusing on post-generation upscaling.

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 provides explicit 'Use this when' bullet points covering three scenarios: need higher resolution, convert to GIF, or after initial generation complete. It also includes a note about the video state requirement. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context makes it clear when to use this tool.

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