edit_cut

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Cut... to clipboard' conveys the core effect (removal and clipboard placement) and hints that a selection is needed. But it does not disclose what happens when no region is selected, that the previous clipboard contents are overwritten, or that the operation is destructive to the source.

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 sentences, 11 words, zero fluff. The action sentence is front-loaded and the precondition follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool this is mostly adequate: it states the action and the key prerequisite. The gaps are minor but real — no failure-mode behavior for a missing selection, no explicit differentiation from the very similar edit_copy, and no return/output expectations (though no output schema exists).

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?

The schema is empty (0 parameters) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description's 'Select a region first' usefully documents the implicit input — the current selection state — which is the de facto parameter of this tool.

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?

States a specific verb (cut), resource (selected audio), and destination (clipboard). The phrase 'to clipboard' semantically distinguishes it from edit_delete (no clipboard) and edit_copy (leaves original intact), though it doesn't name those siblings.

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?

Provides a clear precondition — 'Select a region first.' — which tells the agent that a prior selection is required. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over edit_copy or edit_delete, and no exclusions or alternative routing are given.

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