trim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses re-encoding behavior, the keyframe-snapping side effect in fast mode ("the cut may begin a little early"), and the default output filename. It omits what happens when the output file already exists (the role of overwrite) and what dry_run returns, which are notable gaps for a mutating file tool.

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-loads the one-line purpose, then organizes the rest as short labelled lines for the time parameters and for mode. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no restatement of the tool name or filler.

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-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the tricky temporal/mode semantics are well covered for a nine-parameter tool. The remaining shortfall is operational: no statement of overwrite behavior, dry_run semantics, or the timeout default's implications.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the hardest parameters: the accepted time formats for start/end/duration (seconds, [HH:]MM:SS[.ms], with examples), the mutual exclusivity of end vs duration, the mode values, and the output naming default. It leaves dry_run, overwrite, and timeout_s entirely to their bare names, so three of nine parameters get no added meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Cut a section out of a video or audio file." That cleanly separates it from join-oriented siblings like concat, or re-encode-only siblings like convert/compress, without the agent needing to open a schema.

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 concrete usage rules: supply start+end or start+duration, and with only start the cut runs to EOF. It also frames the accurate-vs-fast tradeoff as a selection decision (frame-exact vs instant/lossless). It stops short of explicitly contrasting against siblings such as extract_audio or make_gif, so no exclusions are stated.

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