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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely non-structured information about the payload — container, codec, resolution, frame rate, bitrate, colour, audio, official spec links, and an editor-agnostic step list — which matters because there is no output 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?

A single sentence, but front-loaded with purpose and then layered with audience and payload detail; nothing is padding. Slight density cost from the long cumulative list of returned fields, though each item earns its place given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its budget enumerating what comes back and covers every platform option. The only shortfall is silent handling of resolution/orientation defaults and whether the step list is editor-specific, which the schema partially implies.

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% with enums on all three parameters, so the schema already defines platform, resolution and orientation fully. The description mentions SDR vs HDR (mapping to the youtube/youtube_hdr split) but says nothing about orientation or default values, so it adds little 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Returns recommended export settings") and narrows the domain to platform upload targets plus a ProRes archive master. The enumerated outputs and platform list make it unmistakable versus siblings like calculate_bitrate or get_safe_zone, which address adjacent but different concerns.

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 trigger conditions are clear and concrete: uploading a finished video to YouTube (SDR or HDR), Vimeo, Instagram Reels or TikTok, or mastering a ProRes archive. It never names a sibling alternative or an explicit when-not case, so an agent must infer that bitrate math belongs to calculate_bitrate rather than this tool.

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