split_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clarifies that the offset is relative to the clip's own in point, but says nothing about what happens to the resulting segments, whether the operation is destructive, or what preconditions (clip must exist, split point within bounds) apply.

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 tight sentence with the key offset semantics front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than over-verbosity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the identity of the clip parameter, post-split state, and error conditions an agent needs to invoke it reliably.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document all three parameters. It meaningfully explains at_s (seconds after the in point), but producer_id is ambiguous — it appears to identify the clip but is never explained — and project_name is left to the schema pattern alone.

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 specific verb (split) and resource (clip) plus the offset semantics, which distinguishes it from trim_clip and remove_segment. It does not explicitly name or rule out the nearest alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 mechanics imply when to use it (cutting a clip into two at a point), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over trim_clip, remove_segment, or move_clip. The agent must infer the selection condition.

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