Upscale image

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses credit consumption, output format (Adobe URLs), and async behavior via wait=false. Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this complements them. However, it omits that confirm=true is required to actually spend credits, which is a critical behavioral gate documented only in the schema.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The most critical operational facts (credits, output format, async toggle) are stated immediately.

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 mutation tool with credit implications and no output schema, the description covers key behaviors but omits the confirm=true requirement, which is essential to avoid failed or unintended credit spends. It also doesn't mention commercial output handling or download directory behavior, though those are in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly, including the credit-spending confirm flag and upscaleFactor options. The description only echoes the wait parameter behavior, adding no new parameter semantics beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Upscale image') that distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_similar or generative_expand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings beyond the name, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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 like generate_similar or generative_fill. The mention of wait=false hints at async behavior but does not explain when to choose sync vs async, nor does it caution about credit consumption conditions.

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