split_item

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

The annotation only states destructiveHint: false, which implies the operation is not destructive. The description adds that it returns 'Object with info about both resulting items,' which clarifies the outcome. However, it does not explain side effects like whether the original item is replaced, undo behavior, or any constraints on position validity. The description provides modest value beyond the annotation but does not contradict it.

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 compact and well-structured, using an Args/Returns format. It front-loads the primary action and then details parameters and return. There is no redundant fluff, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits explanation of two parameters, does not describe the structure of the returned object, and gives no context about the split behavior (e.g., what happens if position is at item boundaries). The description is not sufficient for an agent to call this tool reliably without additional knowledge.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It explains 'position' clearly (in seconds, absolute project time) but completely ignores track_index and item_index, which are required. The agent cannot know what these represent without looking at the schema names, which are somewhat self-explanatory but not explicitly described. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Split a media item at a position') and identifies the resource (media item). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_item, duplicate_item, and set_item_position because 'split' is a unique operation. However, it does not mention that track_index and item_index are needed to identify the item, which is a minor omission.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a media item to be present or selected, nor any comparison to related operations like duplicate or split into multiple parts. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema.

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