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

With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real behavioral detail: the surprising default that all unlocked tracks are affected (so picture edits take sound with them), the warning emitted when sound went with picture, and the contents of `changed`. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 action and its scope before the parenthetical caveat, and every clause carries information. The long parenthetical is dense but earns its place by documenting the tracking default.

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 scope, default behavior, side effects, and return contents, and defers correctly to the server instructions for the edit result since an output schema exists. Nothing needed to invoke it 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining the operational consequence of track_ids' default (locking a track keeps it intact), which the schema only states as 'every unlocked track'. Range and preview semantics are left to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove everything in a frame range on the given tracks ... and close the gap'), with the gap-closing behavior making it distinguishable from a lift-style sibling. It never names range.lift explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a concrete use case ('cutting out silences, filler words or mistakes across all tracks at once') and explains the default scope plus how to narrow it (lock a track with track.set or name track_ids). It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use this one.

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