trim_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that trimming the end shortens the tail and trimming the start moves the head later, leaving a gap, which reveals the non-ripple side effect. It also mentions confirming the new duration, adding context. However, it doesn't mention reversibility, permissions, or what the confirmation entails, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence and supporting detail in the second. Every word is informative with no redundancy.

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, combined with a full-schema-coverage input schema, provides sufficient context for a trim operation. It explains the two edge behaviors and the consequential gap, which is important for the agent to understand the operation's side effect. However, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., active sequence) or return values, leaving some minor gaps.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides for edge, node_id, and time_seconds. The behavioral explanation of edge effects is a minor addition, but not enough to raise the score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Trim') and resource ('a clip's start or end on the timeline'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like move_clip, split_clip, or remove_clip. It also explains the two edge cases, further clarifying its scope.

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 implies usage by explaining the effect of trimming start vs end, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It doesn't contrast with move_clip or split_clip, leaving some ambiguity about selection.

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