pr_removeRange

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds real value beyond them by explaining the razor-at-boundaries mechanic, the ripple default and its effect on later clips, and a concrete safety precaution. It stops short of covering reversibility/undo behavior or failure modes such as locked tracks.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the app and the action, then the ripple default, then the safety note. No sentence merely restates the name or title; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 5-parameter destructive edit with no output schema, the description covers mechanics, track scoping, ripple default, and a safety prerequisite. It doesn't say what the call returns or how to confirm the edit, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 60% (ripple and tracks are undocumented in the schema), and the description compensates well: 'ripple (default true) shifts later clips left to close the gap' and 'on all or listed tracks' explain the two bare parameters. Start/end and sequence are already covered by schema descriptions, and track-name format is not specified.

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 — 'cut a time range out of the timeline' — and immediately disambiguates the mechanics ('razor at start & end, remove what is inside'), which distinguishes it from clip-level siblings like pr_removeClips and the plain pr_razor. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: operates on all tracks by default or a listed subset, and explicitly advises duplicating the sequence first for safety. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use (e.g. vs pr_removeClips), so it stops short of a 5.

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