edit_by_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool is non-destructive (writes a copy), auto-transcribes if transcript is missing, supports optional clip_name filtering, and details mode effects. This is comprehensive for a mutation 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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It begins with the main action, then details modes, transcript handling, and non-destructive behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, two modes, transcript dependency), the description covers essential aspects: modes, non-destructive behavior, auto-transcription, clip filtering, and default output path. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool returns or if there is any feedback, which would enhance completeness.

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%, but the description adds significant context beyond the schema. It explains that 'remove' mode uses ripple cuts, 'keep_only' leaves non-matching clips untouched, padding widens cuts, and phrases are case/punctuation-insensitive. This enhances understanding of parameter behavior.

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 tool's purpose: text-based editing by cutting timeline content based on spoken phrases. It explains two modes (remove/keep_only) and mentions the use of transcript files. This distinguishes it from siblings like remove_media_silence and detect_silence, which focus on silence rather than speech.

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 context on when to use the tool (text-based editing by spoken phrases) and explains mode behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, which would improve guidance.

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