Upscale Video

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

The description reveals a key behavioral trait: 'Submits async — poll the returned request_id with xbrush_get_request.' This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world) by explaining the asynchronous workflow and how to retrieve results. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 extremely concise: one purpose sentence, one async note, and a compact Args list. Every sentence is informative, no filler, and front-loaded with the main purpose. This is an ideal length and structure for agent consumption.

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?

The description covers the main workflow (submit async, poll with xbrush_get_request) and all required parameters are explained. It doesn't mention limitations like supported video formats or file size constraints, but for a simple 3-parameter tool with annotations and a complete schema, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter details (e.g., 'scale (int, required): Upscale multiplier (2 or 4)') but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't clarify format requirements or edge cases that the schema doesn't cover.

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 states 'Upscale a video to higher resolution' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like xbrush_image_upscale and video generation tools by focusing on video upscaling, and the async mention further clarifies its specific role.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Upscale a video to higher resolution' and instructs to 'poll the returned request_id with xbrush_get_request', which is actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like xbrush_video_generate, though the resource (video vs image) and action (upscale vs generate) make it implicit.

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