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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses lossless-mode keyframe snapping, credit cost per output minute, asynchronous job behavior with get_job polling, and one-hour result-link expiry.

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?

The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds operationally useful detail. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing context an agent needs: output-link expiry, async job handling, lossless tradeoffs, and cost. It is complete enough to invoke and manage the tool correctly.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that lossless mode snaps cuts to keyframes and that cost scales with output duration, which is relevant to the lossless and duration-related parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Cut a section out of a video or audio file.' This clearly distinguishes cutting from related media operations like merge, convert, or extract. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as edit_video or convert_media. The lossless-mode explanation helps with a mode choice, but not with tool selection.

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