copy_segment_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait ("Read-only") plus the shape and conditional contents of the return ({duration, extracts}, all tracks vs only track_ids). It omits permission/auth or size-limit context, which are minor for a copy operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and range, and the reversal/workflow note is worth its space. Slightly dense with backtick-heavy cross-references and the "Studio Copy / Cut" comparison, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only copy tool with an output schema present, the definition supplies the workflow context and return shape an agent needs. The only real gap is the undocumented project_path parameter.

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. It usefully clarifies the half-open [start, end) interval and hints that track_ids restricts the copy, but it never explains project_path, leaving one of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 (Copy) plus the exact resource and range semantics: "[start, end) timeline seconds." It distinguishes itself from cut/paste siblings by naming paste_segment_tool, propose_range_cut_tool, and delete_clips_tool, so an agent can place it in the edit workflow without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: pass the result to paste_segment_tool, and for cut-and-paste copy first then cut via propose_range_cut_tool or delete_clips_tool with its mode. It names alternatives and the ordering condition, leaving little to inference.

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