rastermoves_upscale

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the call returns a retained background job rather than finished output, and the operation carries write and inference effects with possible download effects resolved at runtime via danceflow_component. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It leaves the destructiveHint implication unaddressed, never saying what existing files at the output path get overwritten.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; async behavior and the poll target come first, which is the most decision-relevant fact. The 'Base effect flags' phrasing is terse to the point of being cryptic, but every sentence 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?

For a 25-argument inference tool, the description covers the lifecycle and permissions story reasonably and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, the model-selection surface (model vs model_file vs native_scale vs backend) is left entirely to unstructured schema fields, which is the main gap for correct invocation.

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 50% and there are 25 nested arguments, so the description should carry more. It does explain the permissions/effects vocabulary ('Base effect flags: write, inference') which maps to the permissions object, but says nothing about the model, model_file, native_scale, scale, tile or backend arguments that dominate the 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 local images') plus the operating constraints: installed cached weights and provenance sidecars. An agent can distinguish this from rastermoves_models or rastermoves_download, though it never names rastermoves_refine as the neighbouring operation an agent might confuse it with.

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 real follow-up routing ('poll danceflow_job_status') and points to danceflow_component for conditional effects, so the caller knows what to do after invoking. It gives no guidance on when to pick this over rastermoves_refine or rastermoves_plan_all_models, and no prerequisites such as whether weights must be downloaded first.

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