keep_ranges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive fact that everything outside the ranges is removed. It says nothing about reversibility (undo/redo are siblings), whether a timeline must be open, or what the call returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the core behavior front-loaded and the scope constraint immediately after. The trailing tip is short and useful, though slightly informal for a tool definition.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits range format/units, whether ranges are applied against the current timeline, and what happens on invalid or overlapping ranges. The core semantic gap is the parameter format.

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 0% and the only parameter is an untyped nested array of numbers with no title beyond 'Ranges'. The description repeats 'time ranges (in order)' but never specifies the unit or format (seconds, frames, timecode) or that each inner pair is a [start, end] tuple, which is the single most important thing an agent needs.

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: keep only the given ranges and remove everything else. The effect is unambiguous. It never distinguishes itself from the obvious inverse sibling cut_ranges, so an agent must infer which of the two to pick.

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 clause 'handy for building a short/teaser from a longer edit' implies the intended use case but is framed as a tip rather than a rule. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of cut_ranges, the sibling that performs the complementary operation.

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