upscale

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the three different backends and the key side effect that canvas size is unchanged while real pixel data increases, plus an implicit fallback behavior. It does not mention auth/network requirements for the online backend, cost, or reversibility.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the key constraint (canvas size unchanged) placed after. No filler, though the parenthetical backend menu is dense and could be clearer.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must stand alone. It covers the main behavioral trait (pixel vs canvas size) and backend options, but omits factor semantics, required permissions, and what result/format the agent should expect, leaving it adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It partially explains the 'backend' parameter's values (ComfyUI model, stability online, Lanczos+sharpen fallback) but says nothing about 'factor' (how much upscaling), 'layer', or 'project'. Significant gaps remain for a low-coverage mutation tool.

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 a specific operation (add more real pixels to an image layer) and distinguishes itself from a canvas resize by noting 'Its size on the canvas does not change,' which separates it from the sibling resize_image/resize_canvas tools. However, it never names those siblings explicitly or frames the comparison, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

It explains the backend selection chain (ComfyUI model, backend=stability online, else Lanczos+sharpen), which is a form of usage guidance embedded in the description. But it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance relative to resize_image or auto_enhance, leaving the choice to inference.

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