ripple_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ripple effect (removes and closes the gap), but does not mention reversibility, undo behavior, or what happens to adjacent clips/tracks beyond the immediate gap closure.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero waste. The core action and its effect are front-loaded so an agent can parse the intent immediately.

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 3-parameter clip mutation with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: the operation and its immediate effect are clear. It could add a note about undo/reversibility, but that is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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 100%, so the schema already documents clipIndex, trackType, and trackIndex. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the structured schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb phrase ('ripple delete') plus resource ('a clip') and immediately explains the functional effect ('remove and close the gap'), which differentiates it from sibling remove_clip that likely leaves a gap.

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?

Usage is implied by the parenthetical effect: an agent can infer to use this when the gap should close. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative such as remove_clip or state when not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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