Stage a pending cut of an utterance by index, enabling transcript-driven podcast edits with optional review before applying changes.
Stage a pending cut of one utterance by its index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No | ||
| review_required | No | ||
| utterance_index | Yes | ||
| 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",
- "utterance_index"
-]New value: +[
+ "utterance_index"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Pending' usefully implies the cut is staged rather than applied, but nothing is said about what applies it, what review_required does, whether it is reversible, or what the inaudible option changes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though for a four-parameter staging tool it may be terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally sized.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the definition is still incomplete: no annotation coverage, no parameter semantics for three of four params, and no description of the staging/review workflow the tool participates in.
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 four parameters, and the description only names utterance_index, which the schema already makes required. project_path, review_required, and use_inaudible_opt remain entirely unexplained, and the required param gains no meaning beyond its name.
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 ('one utterance by its index'), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like cut_time_range_tool or cut_words_tool. It does not, however, explicitly name which sibling to prefer in which situation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative cut tools (cut_words_tool, cut_time_range_tool, cut_text_match_tool), and no explanation of the workflow that turns a staged cut into an applied one (apply_edits). The agent must infer all routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.