stability_upscale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lacks key behavioral details: the need for an API key (api_key is required but not mentioned), potential input/output format constraints, rate limits, or whether the tool is destructive (it's likely read-only, but not stated). The description is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the return value, required authentication, or any constraints on input images. An agent would need additional context to use the tool reliably.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. The api_key parameter lacks a schema description and the description does not explain it. The width and engine_id parameters are partially documented in schema, but the description provides no clarification on valid ranges or available engines.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action ('Upscale'), the resource ('an image'), and the technology ('Stability AI ESRGAN'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like stability_text_to_image (text-to-image) and stability_image_to_image (image-to-image), which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use (when you want to enlarge an image), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives among the stability tools. No prerequisites or limitations are stated.

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