Razor All Tracks

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: an internal read-only preflight counts eligible cuts and the host wait scales as 400 ms per cut plus a 30 s headroom, capped at 15 minutes. This latency/timeout model is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent otherwise cannot predict. It is also consistent with readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false (splitting twice yields more cuts).

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 sentences with zero filler; the action and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers only the non-obvious timing model. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. With a mutation tool that has no required parameters, the description supplies the one thing that materially affects correct invocation – the scaled wait/timeout behavior – leaving nothing essential missing.

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% and both parameters are self-explanatory (track_type enum, time_seconds with 'uses playhead if omitted'), which the description only restates. No additional meaning, units, or constraints are added beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Razor (split) all clips ... across all tracks') and a clear scope ('all tracks'), which distinguishes it from the single-clip sibling split_clip without needing to name it. An agent immediately knows this is a timeline-wide split operation.

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 conditions (split at playhead or at an explicit time, optionally restricted by track_type) but never states when to prefer this over split_clip or trim/slide alternatives. Usage is inferable from scope wording rather than guidance, so this stays at the minimum-viable level.

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