trim_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important side effect (subsequent clips shift), but says nothing about whether trims are undoable, what happens if only one of src_in/src_out is supplied, what units are used, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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?

Two short sentences with the core operation front-loaded and zero filler. The phrasing 'Later clips ripple' is slightly cryptic, but nothing is redundant.

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, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this definition is thin. The ripple behavior is the only behavioral disclosure; units, optional parameter semantics, failure modes, and reversibility are all missing.

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 for four undocumented parameters. It only clarifies that the in/out points are in source time, leaving the units (seconds vs. frames), the nullability/default behavior of src_in and src_out, and the roles of project and clip_id entirely to inference.

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 gives a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('a clip's in/out points') plus a disambiguating qualifier ('source time'), which clearly separates it from move_clip and split_clip. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 clause 'Later clips ripple' implies this is a ripple-trim operation with downstream consequences, which is useful context for choosing it over split_clip or delete_range. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites or how to avoid the ripple effect.

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