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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that media refs and playback metadata are preserved across the split, but it is silent on mutation-safety essentials: whether the original shot is mutated in place or replaced by two new records, whether the operation is reversible, what IDs result, and whether any permission or lock is required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the action, the result, and the key constraint (offset from shot start) with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but incomplete: it does not describe the shape of the result (e.g., the two resulting shot IDs or which one retains the original ID), which the agent needs since no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including splitTime as seconds from shot start. The description's 'time offset from the shot start' merely restates that definition without adding format, units, or boundary semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Split a shot into two adjacent shot records') plus the mechanism ('at a time offset from the shot start'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like duplicate_shot, create_shot, or update_shot. It never explicitly names a sibling or scoping condition, so it lands just short of the top band.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for dividing an existing shot at a timestamp, but there is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as duplicate_shot or reorder_shots. Nothing is misleading, but nothing routes the agent either.

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