Resize video

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: mandatory confirmation before provider execution and "one submission only," which warns the agent not to retry since the call is non-idempotent and consumes credits. It does not disclose the asynchronous/job result behavior, which would be nice for a mutating tool.

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 text is short and free of padding, but it front-loads the redundant endpoint path and the vague "Current Bannerbear V5 operation" clause instead of the actual purpose. Only the final clause about mandatory confirmation and single submission carries distinctive information.

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 destructive, non-idempotent video operation with a nested payload and no output schema, the definition omits what the tool returns (job id? poll via get_tool_job?), how long processing takes, and what the resize parameters accept. The confirmation/single-submission note is the sole substantive detail in an otherwise thin definition.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The nested payload properties (video_url, width, height, fit) have no inline descriptions, and the description adds no meaning for fit's cover/contain/blur semantics or dimension expectations.

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 only statement of purpose is the HTTP route "POST /v5/tools/resize_video" plus "Current Bannerbear V5 operation," which restates the name and title without describing what resizing does (dimensions, aspect handling, output). It gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as crop_video, trim_video, concat_videos or soften_video.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this tool over crop_video or other video operations, and no prerequisites beyond a generic note that provider scopes and credits apply. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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