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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that processing happens in the browser, consumes more credits than other workspaces, and is excluded from Day Pass, but it omits operational details such as supported input formats, file-size limits, audio preservation, output format, and overwrite behavior.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and useful, describing resize behavior and resolution range. However, the remaining pricing and credit-pack text is long, partially repetitive, and reads more like marketing copy than tool invocation guidance.

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 annotations, no parameters, and no output schema, the description should explain how a video is supplied to the tool and what happens to the output. Instead it focuses heavily on credit pricing and leaves core invocation mechanics and return behavior unspecified.

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 input schema has zero parameters, but the description implies the user can choose an output height from 480p to 2160p. That adds useful resolution semantics, yet it also creates ambiguity because the advertised height selection is not represented in the schema.

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 and resource: resize a video, choose output height from 480p to 2160p, preserve proportional width. It clearly identifies the generic resize operation, but does not distinguish it from sibling tools such as mio_video_resize_reels, mio_video_resize_shorts, mio_video_resize_square, or mio_video_resize_tiktok.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this generic resize tool versus the many aspect-ratio-specific resize siblings or video_crop/video_compress. The pricing paragraph describes credits but does not explain selection conditions or exclusions for this tool.

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