pr_removeClips

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the key added value here is scope disclosure: 'media stays in the project' tells the agent only timeline placement is destroyed, not source assets. 'ripple:true closes the gap' explains the side effect of the ripple flag, which is the main behavioral unknown. Undo behavior and the response payload remain unstated.

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 short clauses, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (what is removed, what is preserved, what ripple does). There is no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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 destructive mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and a well-described nested schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about the result or about how ambiguous clip references (index vs name vs time) are resolved on failure.

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 coverage is 67%; the two undescribed pieces are `ripple` and `clips`. The description compensates for `ripple` by explaining that true closes the timeline gap, which the bare boolean schema does not convey. The accepted `clips` addressing forms are covered by the schema's nested description, so no redundancy is needed.

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 ('remove clips from the timeline') and disambiguates the operation from a project-item delete by noting media stays in the project. It is clearly distinct from siblings like pr_razor, pr_trimClip, and pr_removeRange, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the tool for deleting clips from a sequence without losing source media. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer pr_removeRange (range deletion) or pr_razor (split) over this, nor any prerequisites such as an open sequence.

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