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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose important traits: browser-based processing, higher credit usage per run, limited welcome credits, Day Pass exclusion, and shared credit-pack unlocking. It still omits auth requirements, input-file handling, and return/output details, but the credit and processing disclosures are substantive.

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 purpose and target dimensions are front-loaded effectively. However, the latter half spends several sentences on pricing and credit details that could be condensed or delegated to the pricing tool, and there is a minor double-period typo ('Shorts..').

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?

Covers the target format and credit constraints, but with no output schema and no explanation of how the browser workflow is started or where the saved copy lives, the agent lacks key invocation details. It is adequate for a zero-parameter tool but not 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, so parameter semantics are not applicable; baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 ('Resize'), resource ('Video'), platform target ('Shorts'), and exact output ('1080 × 1920 vertical video with a centered crop'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling resizers such as mio_video_resize_reels, mio_video_resize_tiktok, and mio_video_resize_square.

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?

Implies usage for preparing a Shorts upload and says to check the saved copy before uploading. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to the other resize siblings or state when not to use it; alternatives are left to inference from the platform name and dimensions.

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