gflow_upscale_video

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses a hard host restriction (flow.google.com only; GFLOW_CLI_FLOW_HOST=labs.google refuses it) and a measured credit cost with a dated observation. It omits overwrite behavior for out_dir and whether the operation blocks or takes time.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter meanings and then environment/cost constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the dated credit observation is slightly verbose for its 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description covers parameters, host gating, and cost. It leaves error/failure behavior and output-file naming unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a 5-parameter export tool.

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 compensate, and it documents every one of the 5 parameters: media_id as UUID, the three accepted scale values with meanings, project fallback to the local catalog, out_dir default, and profile default. This is a strong lift over the bare 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 and resource ('Upscale or export a platform-generated Flow video') with the output targets (1080p Full HD / 270p GIF) named inline. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling gflow_upscale_image purely from the description.

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?

Scopes usage to 'platform-generated Flow video' and clarifies optionality of project/out_dir/profile, which tells the agent when defaults apply. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. gflow_download_media) or stating when not to use it.

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