cut_idle

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the edge-padding behavior, the audio-silence condition, that dryRun writes nothing, and the return payload (output path and time saved). It does not mention overwrite protection or re-encoding cost, which for a media-mutating tool would be valuable.

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?

Four tight sentences with the operation and detection criteria front-loaded, then the dryRun hint, then the return values. The line 'Agent recordings are full of these pauses' is mildly promotional but earns some place by explaining why the tool exists.

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?

Covers the operation, the dry-run path, and the return values, which is the key gap for a tool with no output schema. With seven parameters and no annotations, a note on whether the source is ever modified and on overwrite defaults would complete it.

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 keepSec, useAudio, dryRun, minIdleSec and overwrite are all already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the pad concept ('keeping a short pad at each edge') and the dryRun semantics but adds no new format or default information beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Remove dead air: cut stretches where the screen is frozen...') plus the precise detection criteria (frozen video, optionally silent audio). It implicitly separates itself from range-based trimming, but never names a sibling like trim, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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 suggests a usage pattern through 'Agent recordings are full of these pauses,' and correctly frames dryRun as the preview step. However, there is no explicit 'use this instead of trim when...' guidance, no preconditions, and no statement of when not to use it.

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