Upscale / Process Image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention output behavior, whether the image is saved to save_dir, or side effects. The only behavioral detail is resize_mode semantics, which is more of a parameter explanation than a behavior description.

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 and front-loaded, with three short sentences. The first sentence is informative, the second is a technical reference, and the third is slightly redundant with the schema but not harmful. It earns its place without being verbose.

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 tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the expected return value, how parameters like save_dir or show_extras_results interact, or when to use upscaler_2. This leaves the agent without a complete picture for correct 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 92%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely repeating the resize_mode meaning and pointing to upscaler listing. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples to aid usage.

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's function: processing a single image with the Extras pipeline, specifically for upscaling. It references the endpoint and gives a concrete example of upscaler source, clearly distinguishing it from batch or other image-processing tools.

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 specifies this is for a single image and for the Extras pipeline, implying it should be used for individual image upscaling rather than batch operations. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like sdnext_process_batch, the 'single image' phrasing provides clear context and implicit exclusion.

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