edit_split

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: the operation happens in place and does not create a new track. It stops short of detailing undo behavior or selection after-effects, but for a zero-parameter edit command this is solid coverage.

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?

One sentence with no filler. The verb and target are front-loaded, and the parenthetical adds the key behavioral constraint efficiently.

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 command with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: operation, target, split points, and track behavior. There are no missing inputs or return-value expectations to clarify.

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 confirms this, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately adds no invented parameters.

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 names a specific action ('split'), a specific target ('the clip'), and precise split locations ('cursor position or selection boundaries'). The phrase 'in place, no new track' clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_split_new and edit_split_cut.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: splitting at the cursor or selection. The 'no new track' clause is an implicit exclusion that contrasts with edit_split_new, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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