Stage a pending cut of a word-index range on a track to prepare transcript-driven podcast edits. Specify track, start and end word indices, and optionally require review before applying.
Stage a pending cut of a word-index range on a track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | Yes | ||
| source_id | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| end_word_index | Yes | ||
| review_required | No | ||
| start_word_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 / properties / source_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Source Id"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "project_path",
- "track_id",
- "start_word_index",
- "end_word_index"
-]New value: +[
+ "track_id",
+ "start_word_index",
+ "end_word_index"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Stage a pending cut' usefully signals the edit is not immediately applied, but it omits whether review_required gates application, what permissions are needed, and how the pending edit is later committed. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage this 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, leaving no room for the operational detail the reader needs.
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 with 7 parameters at 0% coverage, no annotations, and no workflow guidance, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this mutation correctly.
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. The description only implies the meaning of track_id and the two word-index bounds, leaving source_id, project_path, review_required, and use_inaudible_opt completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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+resource: staging a pending cut of a word-index range on a track. This implicitly distinguishes it from time-based siblings like cut_time_range_tool and cut_text_match_tool. However, it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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 word 'Stage' hints at a two-step stage-then-apply workflow, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the many cut/delete/propose siblings (propose_range_cut_tool, cut_time_range_tool, cut_utterance_tool, etc.). No prerequisites or preconditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.