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 uses more credits per run than other workspaces. However, it does not mention typical behavioral details such as whether the original file is modified, output format, supported video formats, or limitations. With no annotations provided, the description carries a heavy burden and only partially covers 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 is overly verbose, with the most prominent content about credit workspaces, welcome credits, Day Pass, and pricing. The core purpose is stated in the first line, but the remaining sentences are about business models and do not earn their place for tool selection, making it cluttered and not appropriately sized.

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 video processing tool with no output schema and zero parameters, the description should explain the input context (e.g., file selection, supported formats, output behavior). It fails to mention these, instead dwelling on pricing details. This is inadequate for the agent to understand what the tool will do beyond a vague 'resize' and how it will operate.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter explanations, and the empty input schema is consistent with no parameters. No additional semantic value is required.

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 resizes video and changes resolution with quality presets from 480p to 1440p. The verb 'Resize' and resource 'Video' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like resize_reels or resize_square, which are also for resizing videos in specific formats.

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 like resize_reels or resize_shorts. It focuses on credit costs and pricing rather than usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without clear direction on selecting this tool over specialized resizers.

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