upscale_image

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the async task model by mentioning the return of 'a task id, status, and output URLs,' which implies a non-blocking workflow. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., source_task_id from a completed task), auth requirements, or potential side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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 with no filler. It efficiently states the action, the platform, and the return values. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It does not explain the task-based async workflow, the role of wait/timeout/callback, or the relationship between the source task and the upscaler. The return values are mentioned, but terminal statuses are not, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool of this complexity.

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 60% (wait, callback_url, source_task_id have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail; it relies entirely on the schema. It does not clarify how source_task_id relates to the upscaling operation, but the schema already documents it.

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 clear action: 'Create a Grok Imagine task on RunAPI' with the parenthetical '(upscale image)' clarifying the specific purpose. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_image or text_to_image, though the phrase 'Grok Imagine task' introduces slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as edit_image or image_to_video exist, but the description never mentions them or provides exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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