ass_remove_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the include_inverse default and its effect on \iclip, and warns that emptied blocks are dropped by design. It stops short of stating undo/irreversibility or permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by the option semantics. The final sentence restates the return shape, which is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the rest is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return values is unnecessary and repeats structured data. The core mutation behavior is covered, but with zero annotations and 0% param coverage the description should at least clarify what 'selected lines' means when selection/doc_id are omitted.

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 for all three parameters. It only explains include_inverse (and does so well); doc_id and selection are never mentioned, leaving the two routing parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (strip clip tags) and a scope (selected lines), which separates it from broad siblings like ass_strip_tags and ass_remove_tag. It never explicitly names those alternatives, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'from the selected lines' implies a selection must exist first, but the description offers no when-to-use guidance, no contrast with ass_remove_tag / ass_strip_tags / ass_set_clip, and no note on what happens without a selection.

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