gflow_upscale_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the Ultra requirement for 4k, Pro/Plus 2k support, that project falls back to the local catalog, the profile/out_dir defaults, and the notable fact that no credits are spent.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a tight one-clause-per-parameter exposition and a closing credits note. No sentence is wasted and everything is skimmable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, and the description covers the required parameter, defaults, tier constraints, and cost. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with the only gap being no explicit routing to the video sibling.

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 0%, so the description must document all five parameters, and it does: media_id as the image UUID, scale's '2k'/'4k' values with tier constraints, and optional/default behavior for project, out_dir, and profile. This substantially compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Upscale) and resource (platform-generated Flow image) plus the target resolutions and side effect (save locally). It implicitly separates itself from the sibling gflow_upscale_video via 'image', though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. It never points to gflow_upscale_video for video content or explains preconditions beyond the embedded subscription note, leaving the agent to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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