upscale_video

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It only states return values but fails to disclose asynchronous nature, required permissions, or side effects. The polling parameters in schema hint at async behavior, but description does not clarify.

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. However, it is almost too terse, lacking important detail that could be included without significant bloat.

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 no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the task lifecycle, polling behavior, error conditions, or how 'output URLs' relate to different resolutions. Sibling tools suggest a larger video API, but upscale specifics are vague.

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 only 25% (only 'wait' described). The tool description adds no parameter-specific information. Parameters like 'output_resolution' and polling intervals remain undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('Veo 3.1 task on RunAPI (upscale video)'), and mentions return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'text_to_video' and 'extend_video' by focusing exclusively on 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools. Siblings are provided but no comparative usage hints.

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