edit_split_cut

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the key side effect: audio is cut but silence remains, so the gap is not closed. It does not mention clipboard behavior, which separates split-cut from split-delete, but the core destructive behavior is transparent.

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, well-structured sentence states the action and the critical caveat in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and the key distinction is front-loaded.

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 simple, parameterless operation, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the target and the resulting timeline state. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state whether the cut audio is placed on the clipboard, which matters when distinguishing from edit_split_delete or when preparing to paste.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and no further parameter documentation is needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Cut'), a resource ('selected audio'), and the defining behavior ('without closing the gap... leaves silence where audio was'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like edit_cut and edit_delete that would close the gap or remove time.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you want selected audio removed but the timeline position preserved as silence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition 'without closing the gap' is sufficient guidance for choosing among the split/edit siblings.

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