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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that processing happens in the browser, uses more credits than other workspaces, and is not included in Day Pass. However, it omits details about the output artifact, how input is provided, or any file constraints, leaving notable gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 essential purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the following sentences dedicate significant space to credit and pricing information (welcome credits, Day Pass, per-workspace subscriptions, pricing link). While informative, this detail is not necessary for invoking the tool and makes the description longer than needed.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core function and some cost/availability context. However, it does not explain how the video is supplied or what the output looks like, and the phrase 'Video And Audio Studio run' is vague without further elaboration. The description is only moderately 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, and the schema shows 100% coverage (no properties). The description does not need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Resize Video for Reels' and specifies the exact output format (Instagram Reels 9:16, 1080×1920). This distinguishes it from sibling resize tools for TikTok, Shorts, and square formats, making the purpose 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 clearly implies the use case: when the user wants to resize a video to Instagram Reels. It also provides practical context about credit costs and availability (Day Pass exclusion), which informs when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to the other resize tools.

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