Cut By Transcript

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying it cuts transcript elements and also writes a re-timed .srt, but it does not elaborate on overwrite behavior, dry-run reporting, or how the output file relates to the source.

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 a clarifying colon and a second clause for the .srt side effect. Every clause is informative and there is no filler.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description need not explain return values or every parameter detail. It covers the core action and the important side effect of writing a re-timed .srt, though it leaves usage selection against sibling editing tools implicit.

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 schema already documents all parameters in detail, including the remove and fillers parameters. The description echoes the remove/filler concepts but adds no syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('video by its transcript') and enumerates the transcript-based cut modes: quoted text, cue numbers, and fillers. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic trimming or clipping siblings by mechanism, but it does not explicitly name or compare against those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like trim, clip, or cut_idle, nor are prerequisites or exclusions stated. The transcript-based framing implies a use case, but the agent must infer the selection conditions.

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