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

Annotations declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the ripple-cut side effect and the index-shift hazard that requires re-reading the transcript. It does not address reversibility or undo, which matters because a word-deleting tool carrying destructiveHint=false is ambiguous unless the description says the cut is undoable. There is mild tension between 'delete' and destructiveHint=false, but not a direct contradiction.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the operation and its timeline effect first, then the critical caveat about shifting indices. No filler, and the most actionable warning is not buried.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and the main hazard. Gaps remain around reversibility, whether words and ranges are combined or exclusive, and what padding does, which an agent needs before calling this reliably.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description clarifies that indices refer to transcript words obtained from get_transcript, which is meaning the bare integer array does not convey. It adds nothing about padding, projectId, rippleTrackIds, or how words and ranges interact, leaving the partially documented parameters to the schema.

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 (delete) plus resource (transcript words) and names the source of the indices (get_transcript) together with the side effect (ripple-cut from the timeline). It is distinguishable from delete_clips and keep_words, though it does not explicitly separate itself from remove_filler_words, which is a near neighbor.

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 implies the workflow — obtain indices from get_transcript, delete, then re-read the transcript before deleting again — which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing (e.g. remove_filler_words or delete_ranges), so usage is only implied.

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