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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by noting the operation is deterministic and requires no full rebuild. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core operation and the key replacement tip are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.

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 simple two-parameter destructive operation, the description covers what the tool does, the identifier used, the deterministic behavior, and the follow-up workflow for replacement. No output schema is present, so no return-value documentation is required.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It clarifies that clip_id identifies the clip to remove, but project_id is not explicitly described. However, both parameter names are self-explanatory in context.

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 action ('Remove a clip from a timeline') and identifies the key identifier (clip_id), with a concrete use-case example ('a bad take'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like video_editor_add_clip and video_editor_reorder_clip.

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 explicit guidance for the replacement workflow: remove, then add_clip the new asset at the same position. It does not enumerate alternative tools for other scenarios, but the primary usage context is made clear.

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