timeline_split_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the clip becomes two independent pieces and that offset must satisfy 0 < offset < clip duration. However, it does not state whether the original clip is replaced or destroyed, how other clips on the track are affected, or whether the operation is reversible via undo.

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 front-loaded, with a single action sentence followed only by the necessary parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, and the offset constraint is placed where it is most actionable.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the essential invocation details are all present: parameter meanings, units, indexing, and the valid offset range. The main gaps are the lack of explicit usage guidance versus timeline_trim_clip and side-effect disclosure, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema provides zero description coverage, but the description's Args block fully documents all three parameters. It adds essential semantics: track_id identifies the containing track, clip_index is 0-based within that track, and offset is expressed in seconds from the clip's start with a clear valid range. This fully compensates for the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Cut a clip into two independent pieces at a precise time offset.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like timeline_trim_clip and timeline_remove_clip by emphasizing the split into two independent clips. The offset qualifier further specifies the operation's exact behavior.

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 implies the tool should be used when a clip needs to be split at a specific time offset, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives such as timeline_trim_clip. There are no exclusions or routing hints, so the usage context is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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