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

The description discloses that processing happens in the browser and that it consumes more credits than other workspaces. It also mentions welcome credits, day pass exclusions, and pricing. However, it does not describe operational behaviors like whether the original file is modified, supported video formats, or output details. With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only partially satisfies it.

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?

The description front-loads the purpose with 'Crop Video — Crop video to custom dimensions,' which is concise. However, the remaining text about credits and pricing is off-topic for an agent and adds length without operational benefit. The structure is acceptable, but the credit discussion could be trimmed.

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 0-parameter crop tool, the description covers the core purpose and adds important pricing/workspace context. However, it does not explain the output format or any limitations (e.g., file size limits). Since there is no output schema, the description should at least note what the result is, but 'crop video' implies the output, making it adequate but not fully 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?

The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the baseline is 4. The description mentions 'custom dimensions' but does not explain how they are specified, which is acceptable since the schema shows no parameters. No misleading information is added; the description simply doesn't elaborate on parameter details, which is fine for a 0-param tool.

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 explicitly states 'Crop Video — Crop video to custom dimensions,' which clearly identifies the action (crop), the resource (video), and the specific purpose (custom dimensions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like resize or rotate, as the verb 'crop' is specific and unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mio_video_resize or mio_image_crop. It focuses entirely on credit costs and workspace restrictions, which are not usage guidelines for selecting the tool. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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