Upscale, expand, empty a room, vectorize

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true). The description adds value beyond them: the per-operation cost ('1 credit each') and the preservation guarantee for remove_furniture ('keeping walls, floor and windows'). It does not disclose return format or async/result-retrieval behavior, which matters for an openWorld generation tool.

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?

A front-loaded one-line summary followed by four tight bullets, each naming an operation and its effect. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the return/result story, and it does not say how output is retrieved (though a luw_get_result sibling exists). Otherwise it is complete for a 4-operation, 5-parameter utility tool, with cost and operation semantics covered.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description usefully expands the 'operation' enum values (which the schema leaves undocumented) and confirms scale is upscale-only. However, it says nothing about 'precision' or 'format', and precision's applicability to a specific operation is left ambiguous.

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 states a specific resource (one-step image utilities) and enumerates each of the four operations with a concrete verb and effect ('upscale: enhance quality and enlarge 2x/4x/8x', 'remove_furniture: empty a furnished room'). An agent can tell what each operation does. It stops short of distinguishing this multi-op tool from siblings like luw_edit_image or luw_render.

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?

Each bullet supplies the condition that selects it ('outpaint a tightly cropped architectural photo', 'empty a furnished room'), which is genuine usage context. It never names alternatives or exclusions relative to the sibling image tools, so it is clear-but-not-routing.

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