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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: runs in the browser, consumes credits at a higher rate than other workspaces, has welcome credit limits, excludes Day Pass, and uses a shared credit pack rather than per-workspace subscription. It does not describe return format or file handling, preventing a 5.

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 core purpose, but the subsequent pricing/workspace explanation is verbose and repetitive, reusing 'credit pack' and 'workspace' multiple times. It could be condensed and more clearly structured, though it remains readable.

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 no annotations, the description covers cost/workspace mechanics well but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a rotated video file) and introduces ambiguity around 'all three credit-based workspaces.' This leaves some practical gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying the supported rotation angles (90, 180, 270 degrees), though it does not explain how to specify this selection given the empty schema. This is acceptable since there are no parameters to document.

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 'Rotate Video' and explicitly states 'Rotate videos 90, 180, or 270 degrees.' This names a specific verb, resource, and degree options, clearly distinguishing it from rotation tools for images or PDFs.

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 indicates when to use the tool—when you need to rotate a video—and includes useful context about credit costs and browser processing. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative video transforms (e.g., flip, crop) or state when NOT to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than direct.

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