Lift Selection

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the verification behavior ('then verify the range is empty on those tracks and nothing else on them moved') and the side-effect reporting mechanism ('Untargeted tracks are not verified; any that changed are listed in otherTracksChanged'). It also flags the EXPERIMENTAL/QE-DOM provenance. It does not mention undo/reversibility, which is the one behavioral trait an agent might still want.

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 EXPERIMENTAL caveat is front-loaded and each remaining sentence (action, precondition, verification) carries distinct information with no filler. It runs slightly long for a zero-argument operation, keeping it out of the top band.

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 destructive-ish timeline mutation, the description covers purpose, preconditions, post-conditions, and side-effect reporting, and an output schema exists so return values need not be restated. The gap is the destructiveness/undo story relative to destructiveHint=false, which the description does not address.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the implicit inputs (sequence in/out points, targeted tracks) are state, not arguments. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Lift (remove without closing the gap)') and a precise resource ('the content between the sequence in/out points on every targeted, unlocked track'). It also implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling ripple_delete/remove_selected_clips by defining lift as removal that does NOT close the gap.

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 gives clear preconditions for use ('Requires sequence in/out marks that do not span the whole sequence') and defines the operational scope (targeted, unlocked tracks). It does not name an explicit alternative tool (e.g., ripple_delete, extract_selection) or when to prefer this over them, so it falls short of a 5.

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