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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that both sound and captions are cut, that padding is retained so the result isn't choppy, that only the clip is saved with no render, that the change is immediately undoable in Slice, and that export happens once at the end. That reconciles the mutation with destructiveHint=false and gives the agent a real picture of side effects and workflow.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and then the input forms, restore, and save-vs-render semantics in a tight sequence. A few phrases ("the way the Slice editor's clean-up does", "so it never sounds choppy") are colorful rather than load-bearing, and the parameter forms duplicate the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead covers the things structure can't: what gets modified, reversibility, that no render occurs, and the export-at-the-end workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100% and the description's three input forms (index list, {"fillers": true}, {"pauses_over_seconds": 0.8}) restate the schema's words description almost verbatim, as does restore: true. The only added nuance is the padding/breathing-room behavior around cuts. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 and resource (cut words or pauses from a clip) and immediately narrows scope: it removes words, all fillers, or long pauses, affecting both audio and captions. That contrasts implicitly with caption-only or trim-only siblings, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not touch.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ("Use this when the person wants to remove words, every filler, or long pauses from a made clip") and covers the inverse operation via restore: true. It also routes the agent to get_clip_edit for word indexes. It does not explicitly exclude near neighbors like edit_captions or set_trim, which keeps it short of a 5.

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