razor_all_tracks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the broad scope ('all clips on all tracks'), but it does not state that splitting creates edits, whether the operation is undoable, how locked or selected tracks are treated, or what the tool 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The core action and scope come first, followed by a useful analogy.

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 one-parameter tool this is mostly callable, and the schema fully describes the time parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits important context about the mutation's consequences and how it differs operationally from razor_clip.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Time in seconds to split all clips.' The description adds only 'at a specific time' and the playhead analogy, which does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Split all clips on all tracks at a specific time.' The phrase 'all clips on all tracks' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling razor_clip, which would act on a single clip. The parenthetical analogy to pressing C at the playhead reinforces the exact editing action.

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 playhead analogy implies this is a timeline-editing operation, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus razor_clip or when not to use it. Usage is inferable from the scope wording but not directly prescribed.

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