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

With no annotations available, the description goes beyond basics by disclosing that processing runs in the browser, consumes more credits than other workspaces, welcome credit limits, Day Pass exclusion, and a link to pricing. This gives the agent useful operational context, though it does not mention output delivery.

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 front-loaded with the functional purpose, then spends several sentences on pricing and workspace access. All information is relevant, but the pricing section is wordy and could be tightened; still every sentence contributes.

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?

The description covers output format and cost but omits how the input video is provided and what the output artifact looks like (download URL, etc.). Since there is no output schema and zero parameters, these operational details are needed for reliable invocation.

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 per rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the output size (1080×1080), which helps the agent set expectations, though it doesn't clarify how the input video is selected or passed.

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 explicitly states 'Resize any video to 1:1 square format (1080×1080) for Instagram and social media,' clearly identifying the tool's function and target output. This distinguishes it from sibling resize tools like reels/shorts/tiktok by specifying the square aspect ratio.

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?

It provides clear usage context: use for square video for Instagram and social media. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool vs. other resize variants, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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