edit_disjoin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation and result but does not mention whether the original audio is replaced, whether the operation is destructive or reversible, or how silence detection is configured. These are significant gaps for an editing 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the action and the result, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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-argument tool this is minimally complete: it identifies the selection target and the outcome. However, it omits routing guidance among the many split-related sibling tools and does not disclose the behavioral consequences of the operation, which leaves some context gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: split the selected audio at detected silences, creating separate clips. It clearly communicates the operation and result, and somewhat distinguishes itself from silence-removal tools like truncate_silence, though it does not explicitly contrast with the edit_split sibling family.

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 phrase 'at detected silences' implies when this tool is appropriate, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent would not know from this description when to choose edit_disjoin over edit_split, edit_split_new, or label_split_regions.

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