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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the asynchronous behavior ('Returns immediately with a pending job') and the input URL schemes, but does not mention failure modes, permissions, or whether input files are retained. It adds some behavioral context beyond the schema but is not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the key inputs and then the critical async behavior with pointers to follow-up tools. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow: create the job, note it's pending, and know how to track it. It doesn't repeat schema details like max inputs or the preset/options precedence, which are already in the schema. For a job-creation tool with a rich schema, this is sufficiently 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters, including the preset/options interplay. The description only restates that inputs and output format are accepted, adding no new meaning. It correctly relies on the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a video transcode job') and the resource (FFmpeg Micro), and specifies the key inputs (input videos and output format). It also distinguishes itself from sibling progress-tracking tools by naming them explicitly, so an agent can tell this is the creation tool, not a polling or waiting tool.

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 explains that the tool returns immediately with a pending job and directs the agent to `get_transcode`, `list_transcodes`, or `transcode_and_wait` to follow progress. This gives clear context for when to use this tool vs. those alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly say 'use transcode_and_wait if you want to block until completion' — a minor omission.

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