Stage a pending cut for a time range on a podcast track; the cut applies after edits are approved.
Stage a pending cut of a time range on a track; applies after approve_edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| reason | No | nl:range | |
| track_id | Yes | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| review_required | No | ||
| use_inaudible_opt | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_id",
- "start",
- "end"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id",
+ "start",
+ "end"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is a staged/pending mutation requiring approve_edits to take effect, which is genuinely valuable. But it says nothing about the review_required flag defaulting to true, reversibility, or what a 'staged' cut does to the timeline in the interim.
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 tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. It is arguably over-terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, but nothing 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 7-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with an output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: the units/format of start and end, the effect of review_required, and whether the staged cut is reversible are all unaddressed. The approve_edits dependency is the only workflow context given.
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% across 7 parameters (track_id, start, end, reason, project_path, review_required, use_inaudible_opt), so the description must compensate and does not. It adds no meaning for units of start/end, the reason default, or the purpose of review_required and use_inaudible_opt.
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 (stage a pending cut) and resource (a time range on a track), and notes it applies after approve_edits. However, in a sibling set containing propose_range_cut_tool, cut_utterance_tool, cut_words_tool and cut_text_match_tool, it does not distinguish itself from the closest alternative, propose_range_cut_tool.
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 clause 'applies after approve_edits' implies the pending-edit workflow and locates the tool in a sequence, which is useful. But it never says when to choose this over propose_range_cut_tool or preview_inaudible_cut_tool, nor any prerequisites for staging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.