trim_media

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. 'Without re-encoding' is a useful trait — implying speed and lossless output — but the description does not say whether the original file is modified or a new file is produced, where output goes, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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 sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 three-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. Critical details — output destination, whether the source is modified, handling of invalid ranges — are absent, leaving the agent to guess at behavior.

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 three undocumented parameters, and it does not — file, startSec, and endSec are never referenced. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory, which prevents a 1, but there is no added meaning about units, formats, or edge cases.

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 — 'Cut a time range out of a video or audio file' — plus the meaningful qualifier 'without re-encoding.' The purpose is immediately clear. No sibling differentiation is needed since the listed siblings (seal_run, resize_image, etc.) are unrelated operations, so it lands just shy of a 5.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no constraints on input (e.g., valid time ranges relative to file duration). An agent must infer all usage conditions from the schema alone.

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