Upscale Image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhance resolution and quality' but lacks details on how the enhancement works (e.g., AI upscaling, interpolation), potential side effects (e.g., file size increase, quality loss), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs a non-trivial operation.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (image processing), no annotations, and an existing output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like how enhancement is performed or error conditions, leaving gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'messageId' refers to an image, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Enhance image resolution and quality' clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs ('enhance') and resource ('image'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'inpaint-image' or 'generate-image'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create-variant' or 'reroll-image', which might also involve image modifications, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-variant' or 'reroll-image', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing image message ID. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to invoke it.

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