Upscale a finished video (new job)

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: the original is preserved, cost is 0.2 credits/second, and the job must be polled via wait_for_job. It doesn't cover failure/auth behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Dense, front-loaded, telegram style with no filler; the key scoping fact leads and the polling instruction closes. Slightly clipped phrasing costs a point on readability but every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the essential return behavior ('poll the returned id with wait_for_job') plus cost and model constraints. Adequate for the tool's complexity, with only the `id` parameter's origin left implicit.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that minimax-h3 needs no resolution, that craftstory-2 only accepts 720p sources, and maps the resolution enum values to source resolutions. The meaning of the `id` parameter is only implied ('the original stays').

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+resource: creating a NEW upscale job while the original stays, which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_*_video tools. It names no sibling explicitly, but the 'new job / original stays' scoping makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

Gives per-model selection guidance (craftstory-2 source/resolution constraints, minimax-h3 always 2x) and tells the agent to poll with wait_for_job. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use routing versus the create_*_video siblings.

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