remove_silences

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that the edit is a ripple (timeline shortens), scoped to storyline clips, and that connected B-roll, titles, music and the adjustment clip survive. It omits whether the operation is reversible or how to revert, which matters for a destructive timeline edit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope, followed by what is preserved and the required precondition. Each sentence adds distinct information; nothing is padding.

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?

Behavioral context is solid for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, but with four undocumented parameters at 0% coverage the agent cannot reason about tuning the silence detection. The definition is adequate to call the tool with defaults, not to configure it deliberately.

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% and no parameter names are mentioned; the description only gestures at 'the user's saved style unless overridden' without mapping that to min_silence, threshold_db, keep_before_speech or keep_after_speech. Units, sensible defaults and the relationship between the four params are left entirely undocumented.

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 operation ('ripple-delete pauses from the storyline clips') with an explicit framing verb ('jump-cut edit'), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It also distinguishes itself from find_silences and implicitly from cut_ranges/keep_ranges by scoping the action to detected pauses in storyline clips.

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 a clear workflow precondition: 'Run find_silences first to show the user what will go,' which routes the agent to the correct sibling and even encodes a user-confirmation step. It lacks an explicit exclusion (e.g., what to do for non-storyline clips or manual ranges), so it falls 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.