delete_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: downstream content ripples left, so the agent knows the timeline is reflowed rather than left with a gap. It omits whether the deletion is undoable, what happens to linked audio/text, and what is returned.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key side effect. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is close to the edge of under-specification for a destructive mutation.

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?

This is a destructive timeline mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers the ripple consequence but leaves undoability, dependency handling (linked media, captions), and identifier sourcing entirely unaddressed.

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% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither clip_id nor project is explained — the agent gets no hint about identifier format, where clip ids come from, or how the project scopes the lookup.

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?

"Remove a clip" gives a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from add_clip, trim_clip, and split_clip by intent. However, it never contrasts with the closely named delete_range sibling, leaving the timeline-scope distinction to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name that this removes a whole clip rather than a time range (delete_range) or a partial trim (trim_clip), and no prerequisites such as project context or clip lookup are stated.

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