upscale_video

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or produces any output. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and zero annotations, it is too brief. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; an extra sentence or two would improve this dimension.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how long upscaling takes, or any error conditions. The context is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

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 67% (account and cookies have descriptions; video_id does not). The description clarifies that video_id identifies the video to upscale, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on account or cookies beyond what the schema provides, so value added is moderate.

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 action (upscale) and the target resource (a generated video identified by video_id). It distinguishes from video creation tools like generate_video and image_to_video. However, the phrasing 'Ask Grok' is slightly informal and does not add technical clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_video or image_to_video. There are no usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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