edit_split_new

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

Without annotations, the description must explain side effects, but it is ambiguous whether the original audio is preserved or removed, and whether multiple tracks are created. It only says 'a new track' without clarifying the exact split behavior or how the selection is affected.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple tool, but it does not mention prerequisites like having an active selection or how it handles multiple tracks. For such a straightforward operation, the description is mostly complete, though a note on distinctions from similar tools would enhance usability.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description correctly relies on the current selection with no need for input. Since the schema already covers the absence of parameters, the description adds no additional requirements.

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 action (split), the target (selected audio), and the outcome (a new track at selection boundaries). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_split or edit_split_cut by specifying the creation of a new track.

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 does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like edit_split or edit_split_cut. While the phrase 'into a new track' implies a distinct behavior, it does not state when to prefer this tool over the others, leaving the choice to inference.

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