upscale-image

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool processes an existing image and returns a path, but doesn't state whether the source is overwritten, what side effects occur, or operational constraints. This is moderate disclosure for a non-destructive-looking pipeline.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no filler. Every clause adds information: pipeline, kind-based resolution, usage condition, and return value.

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 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and the return value. It lacks operational details like sync/async behavior or output location, but these are minor given schema descriptions.

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 baseline applies. The description adds no extra meaning over the schema's parameter documentation; it simply refers to 'kind' without detailing the enum or slug semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('existing image through model-upscale pipeline'), and clarifies the output ('finished resolution', 'finished PNG path'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling generate-image, but the 'existing image' phrasing implies a finishing step rather than creation.

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?

'Use on a draft that won curation as-is' gives a clear condition for when to invoke this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough to route an agent correctly.

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