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

Adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: linked clips are split as well, which an agent could not infer from the schema. However, the return behavior is deferred to 'see the server instructions', and it does not clarify what happens at clip boundaries or on a repeated identical split, where idempotentHint=true is questionable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the side effect. No filler or repetition.

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, but the description leans on 'see the server instructions' instead of stating the edit-result shape, and says nothing about handle invalidation or failure modes for a mutating 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 50%: preview and timeline_id are documented inline, but clip_id and at_frame are not. The description only restates that a frame is the split point without saying which side the frame lands on, and adds nothing about clip_id or the timeline handle.

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 a clip in two at a frame, and discloses that linked clips are cut too. It is distinguishable from siblings like clip.trim or clip.roll in spirit, but never names them, so differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by 'cut a clip in two at a frame', but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as clip.trim, clip.slide, or clip.roll, and no preconditions (e.g. frame must lie inside the clip's range).

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