trim_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses that it's audio-safe, preserves total video length, and performs an instant timeline edit by default without rendering. It also explicitly instructs to call render_project when done, making the behavior and required follow-up transparent.

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 exactly three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by a key safety property and the usage workflow. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or filler, achieving high information density.

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 tool with moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, the prerequisite (suggest_clips), the default behavior (no render), and the follow-up action (render_project). It is fully self-contained for an agent to use it correctly in the given workflow.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by specifying where to obtain segment_id ('from suggest_clips') and clarifying the effect of duration_sec via 'freeing that time back to the A-roll'. This slightly exceeds the baseline by enriching parameter origin and consequence.

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 the specific action (shorten/restore), the target resource (ONE B-roll cutaway in a Swap & Refine project), and the effect (freeing time back to A-roll). It distinguishes from siblings like swap_clip and suggest_clips by focusing on adjusting the on-screen duration of a single cutaway.

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?

The description provides clear workflow context: get the segment id from suggest_clips, then use this tool, and finally call render_project when done. It implicitly says when to use (for single cutaway duration adjustments) but doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or contrast with alternatives like swap_clip for replacing clips. The guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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