split_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes a return object with info about both resulting items, but omits whether the operation is undoable, what happens to the original item, required permissions, or failure conditions for an inherently mutating edit.

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 definition is short and front-loaded, with the core operation stated first and parameter/return notes following. The Args/Returns formatting is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the documentation gaps.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. Since no output schema exists, it need not detail the return, but it should at least define the item-targeting parameters and state the effect on the source item.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only 'position' (seconds, absolute project time); track_index and item_index are left completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 ('Split') and resource ('a media item') at a given position, which is unambiguous. No sibling tool performs a split, so differentiation is implicit, but it does not explicitly position itself against related item tools like delete_item or duplicate_item.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. It never clarifies that track_index and item_index identify the target item, so an agent must infer the usage context entirely from the schema.

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