Create Subclip

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

Annotations already disclose mutation safety traits: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the source is a project item and that in/out points are used, but does not describe side effects, permissions, or whether the source item is modified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation efficiently.

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?

With a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the basic operation adequately. However, for a creation tool surrounded by many editing siblings, it omits usage context, prerequisites, and differentiation from related tools such as create_subsequence or split_clip.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions in/out points and the project item source, but adds no unit, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a subclip" from a project item with in/out points. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation, but it does not distinguish the tool from nearby siblings such as create_subsequence, split_clip, or set_item_in_out.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely restates the action and required inputs, leaving the agent to infer appropriate scenarios from the tool name and schema.

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