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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is project-scoped, that it splits inserts it crosses, removes footage fully covered, and re-anchors everything in one version write. This goes well beyond the minimal annotations and gives the agent a precise mental model of the operation.

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 description is long but every sentence adds value: scope, behavior, insert handling, use cases, and warnings. It is front-loaded with the project-scoped note and structured logically. It could be slightly tighter but remains efficient.

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 complex operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how it handles overlapping inserts, when to use it, and what it returns (project identity). It even addresses a common misconception (that cutting inside an insert is impossible). Nothing critical 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?

With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that start and end are in OUTPUT seconds and that the range applies to the assembled program. It also clarifies project_id is required and immutable, and that one range per call is allowed. This adds meaning the schema lacks.

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 it cuts a span of the ASSEMBLED program in OUTPUT seconds, distinguishing from source-time cuts and explicitly contrasting with set_insert_window. The verb 'cut' and resource 'output range' are specific, and the mention of 'the clock the viewer and the scene map use' adds precision.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative set_insert_window and explains why it is inappropriate ('that changes WHICH part plays, it cannot remove a middle'). It also provides example user requests ('cut 12-15 of the video') and advises batching multiple calls for multiple ranges, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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