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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that processing happens in the browser and uses more credits per run than other workspaces, and that Day Pass is excluded. However, it does not describe what happens to the original video (overwrite vs new file), output delivery, or any processing limitations, leaving key behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the credit/workspace information is relevant for decision-making. However, the pricing details are somewhat verbose and repeat the 'credit' concept multiple times, making it slightly less concise than ideal.

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 and zero annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It explains the format and credit implications, but does not mention output file details, input requirements (file path/format), or any constraints (e.g., maximum video length), leaving gaps for a tool with no schema information.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter details because there are none to explain. It would benefit from clarifying how the input video is provided, but given the schema covers all (zero) parameters, this is acceptable.

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 'Resize Video for Shorts — Resize any video to YouTube Shorts 9:16 vertical format (1080×1920).' This uses a specific verb and resource, clearly states the target format, and differentiates from sibling resize tools like mio_video_resize_tiktok and mio_video_resize_reels by specifying YouTube Shorts and exact dimensions.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (need YouTube Shorts vertical format) and adds operational context about higher credit usage and Day Pass exclusions. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for other aspect ratios (e.g., TikTok or Reels), so it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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