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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains the key behavioral nuance: removing clips does not delete the underlying videos or files, and they can be added again. It also states the active-cut restriction and that the updated cut is returned, which is valuable for a destructiveHint=true 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 description is three tight sentences with no wasted language. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the crucial non-destructive clarification and the active-cut constraint.

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 removal tool with complete schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers what is removed, what is preserved, the active-cut restriction, and that an updated cut is returned even though no output schema exists.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents threadId, cutId, and clipIds. The description adds minor context that clip ids come from get_timeline and that only the active cut can be changed, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: removing clips from a cut by clip id. It also clarifies that this is not a file deletion because the underlying videos stay in the thread and library, which distinguishes it from destructive sibling operations like delete_node.

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 gives clear context for use: remove clips by ids obtained from get_timeline, and only the active cut can be changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_clips_to_timeline or reorder_clips, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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