cut_ranges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: backups are created, source-to-output mapping is included, zoom times are preserved, and the tool will not auto-select speech. It omits permission/auth requirements, reversibility beyond backups, and failure behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each sentence carrying a distinct piece of information (operation, applicability, scope limits, side effects). Dense but no filler; the terseness trades some readability for economy.

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 description covers side effects well but leaves gaps: dryRun (preview semantics), expectedRevision (concurrency/conflict behavior), and what the caller gets back are unexplained. It is adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for two params — 'SOURCE-time ranges' clarifies the time base for ranges, and 'Recordly 1.4.0' maps to the timelineModel const. But project, dryRun (important for a cut operation), and expectedRevision are entirely undocumented in both description and schema.

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 ('Subtract') and resource ('reviewed SOURCE-time ranges from existing 1x clipRegions'), so the core operation is identifiable. However, the jargon-heavy phrasing ('clipRegions', '1x') and lack of explicit differentiation from siblings like delete_zooms or detect_silence keep it from a 5.

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 gives an applicability constraint ('Only the tested Recordly 1.4.0 single-source timeline model') and a scope exclusion ('Never moves zoom times or automatically decides which speech to cut'), which implicitly tells the agent it must supply reviewed ranges. But it names no alternatives and does not say when to prefer this over sibling tools, so guidance is only implied.

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