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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description reveals the index shift behavior, the restriction on removing the last clip, and the full concurrency conflict domain. This adds significant value and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: core purpose, index shift and multi-removal guidance, then concurrency warning. Every sentence adds unique information with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Covers the effect (removal and shift), constraints (last clip), and concurrency. No output schema exists, but the description explains the behavior sufficiently. Lacks explicit error conditions (e.g., out-of-bounds index), but overall adequate for a straightforward removal tool.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the effect of clip_index (shifts down by 1) and the implication for multiple removals, which goes beyond the schema's 'Zero-based clip index to remove.' This is useful behavioral 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 clearly states 'Remove a clip from the project by index' with a specific constraint 'Cannot remove the last remaining clip.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_elements' (which removes elements, not clips) and other project-level mutations.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: the last clip cannot be removed, and for multiple removals it advises 'remove from highest index to lowest' or capture IDs. Also gives clear concurrency instructions: serialize all mutations on the same project_id, do not run in parallel with any other mutation on the same project.

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