recraft_crisp_upscale

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the enhancement style ('sharp, clean') and intended subjects, but does not disclose limitations such as upscale factor, aspect ratio behavior, or whether photographic images are unsupported. It is not contradictory, but it could be more transparent about side effects and constraints.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the most useful usage context. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete. It could strengthen selection by explicitly pointing to recraft_creative_upscale for non-crisp or photographic upscaling, but its 'best for graphics, icons, illustrations' guidance substantially covers the decision context.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including file_path constraints and response_format enum/default. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but none is needed since the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Upscale an image with sharp, clean enhancement.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling recraft_creative_upscale by emphasizing crisp, clean output, making the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 phrase 'Best for graphics, icons, illustrations' gives clear context about when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the placement of this tool alongside recraft_creative_upscale makes the intended use case reasonably clear.

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