trim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well by disclosing a genuinely non-obvious trait: stream-copies on keyframe boundaries and re-encodes otherwise, which signals a speed/quality tradeoff an agent would not learn from the schema. It stops short of stating that the tool writes a file (with overwrite semantics) or what happens on invalid ranges.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat follows. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mechanics but omits output information (what is returned, e.g. output path), error conditions on out-of-range start/end, and the fact that existing files are only replaced when overwrite is set.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so input/start/end/output/reencode/overwrite are already documented. The keyframe sentence adds context for why reencode is auto-detected, but provides no additional syntax, units, or defaults beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource: 'Cut one range out of a media file.' The qualifier 'one range' hints at a single-clip operation, but with a sibling literally named 'cut' the description never explicitly differentiates itself, leaving ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and it does not name alternatives like 'cut', 'concat', or 'render'. Usage is only implied by 'one range' and the keyframe note, which is minimal inference-heavy guidance.

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