label_cut_regions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the clipboard behavior, the need for selection, the timeline closing (regions collapse), and the advice to re-read label_list. It also mentions it's not yet independently live-tested. This is transparent about side effects and current reliability, though it omits undo behavior or other potential pitfalls, so not a 5.

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 compact—four sentences—and front-loads the core action. It includes necessary prerequisites and behavior in a logical order, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, what to do first, what happens to labels, and how to verify results. It also notes its testing status. It's slightly incomplete in that it doesn't mention undo or error handling, but given the simplicity, it's largely sufficient.

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, so the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds context about what the operation acts on (selected audio tracks/regions) but no parameter-specific details are needed. Per the rubric, with 0 params, baseline is 4; this holds as the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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: 'Cut the audio under every label to the clipboard, closing the gaps.' It specifies the resource (audio under every label) and result (clipboard, gaps closed). It also differentiates from siblings by describing the timeline closing up, making it distinct from delete/silence/split/join.

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 explicitly instructs to select audio tracks and time range first, and notes the behavioral consequence that labeled regions collapse. It names sibling tools as a contrast, implying when this tool might be chosen (when gaps should close) versus others, though it doesn't give a full when-not matrix. Still, it provides clear context and an actionable prerequisite.

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