Upscale video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose that this is likely an async/long-running generation task, whether it costs credits, or what resolution limits or scale factors apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally clean. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving questions about scale factor and output resolution unanswered.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The schema is minimal (one required id) and the annotations cover the safety profile, but for a media-processing tool the description omits any notion of async execution or upscaling options, leaving it only minimally complete.

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?

Only one parameter (videoFileId) exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb (increase) and resource (resolution of a video), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling upscale_image or any of the many video-generation siblings, so an agent must infer the distinction on its own.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as upscale_image or the generate_video_clip family. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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