Upscale an image

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

Adds asynchronous behavior beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates mutation; description clarifies it returns a task id). However, it does not disclose what happens to the original image or any side effects, and lacks authentication/rate limit details.

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?

Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. Front-loaded with the core action and essential details about async behavior and default parameter.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input format, async nature, default factor. It could elaborate on what the task response contains, but it directs to poll vicsee_get_task which suffices.

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 has 100% coverage but description adds value by stating the default value for 'upscale_factor' ("2") which is not in the schema. The description also reinforces the 'publicly accessible' constraint for image_url.

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 upscales publicly accessible images, specifying supported formats (JPEG/PNG/WebP) and mentions asynchronous behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vicsee_upscale_video.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: async operation returns a task id to poll, and upscale_factor has a default of '2'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives.

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