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

Despite lacking annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral traits: audio pitch preservation, browser execution, and credit consumption. It also explains workspace restrictions and pricing caveats. However, it does not cover file handling, output format, or speed specification, leaving some operational behavior 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 opening sentence is concise and informative, but the second half devotes significant space to credit/workspace pricing, which is tangential to the core tool function. It could be tightened without losing essential invocation details, but it is still reasonably structured.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, mentions browser processing, and alerts to credit costs and workspace exclusions. A notable gap is how the speed factor is determined (e.g., via UI) and what input format is expected, but the description provides enough context for an agent to gauge when to use it.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, the baseline is 4. The description adds semantic context that the tool adjusts video speed while preserving audio pitch, which helps the agent understand the tool's effect despite no param syntax needed. It does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' with resource 'Video Speed', clearly stating it speeds up or slows down videos with audio pitch preservation. It distinguishes itself from audio-only speed tools (e.g., mio_audio_speed) and other video editing tools by focusing on speed adjustment with pitch preservation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or how it compares to mio_audio_speed or other video tools. The credit/workspace information is context but not usage direction.

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