asset_upscale_refine

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

The description claims a write operation ('upscale / refine') but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) is disclosed.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information without extra fluff.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and an annotation contradiction, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify return values, explain all parameters, or resolve the readOnly inconsistency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the mode enum's algorithms (DAT2, Real-ESRGAN, etc.) and ties asset_type to algorithm selection. However, it does not explain target_size, output_dir, or image format.

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 upscales/refines images with asset-type awareness, listing specific algorithms for different types. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_generate_logo or asset_remove_background.

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 the tool is for upscaling/refinement but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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