upscale_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returns (task id, status, output URLs) but does not clarify the asynchronous nature of task creation, whether the returned URLs are immediate or after completion, or any error conditions. The presence of wait, poll_interval_ms, and callback_url parameters indicates async behavior, but the description omits this crucial context.

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 sentence of 16 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, but it omits essential behavioral details needed for correct invocation, which prevents a 5. Still, it avoids fluff and is efficiently 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?

Despite the schema covering many parameters, the tool has 7 parameters including async-related fields, and no annotations or output schema are provided. The description fails to explain the task lifecycle (e.g., polling or webhooks), the fact that results are not immediate, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a complex asynchronous 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 71%, which is moderate but under the 80% threshold for a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level insight, and the schema leaves timeout_ms and poll_interval_ms undocumented. The description's 'Returns a task id, status, and output URLs' vaguely implies outputs but does not clarify how parameters affect behavior.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a Topaz task on RunAPI (upscale image).' The verb 'create' is specific, and the parenthetical disambiguates the resource as an image upscaling task. This effectively distinguishes the tool from its sibling upscale_video, which is for video upscaling.

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 usage for image upscaling via the phrase 'upscale image,' and the sibling context (upscale_video) suggests when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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