delete_clips_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: it discloses reversibility ('undoable'), the safety guard that a ripple cutting outside speech 'changes nothing and returns needs_confirmation', the override flow being 'recorded', and the underlying mutation ('Submits DeleteClip on the document plane'). This is rich mutation-safety context beyond the schema.

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 verb+resource, then well-organized into mode semantics, confirmation flow, and sibling routing using inline code formatting. Information-dense and nearly waste-free, though it runs long enough that a trim would help.

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 mutating, confirmation-gated tool, it covers action, reversibility, guard behavior, override, and alternatives. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the only notable omission is the meaning of project_path.

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 explains clip_ids (list of clips from list_clips_tool), mode semantics (gap vs ripple with exact track behavior), and override_audio_checks (applies a blocked ripple, recorded). Only project_path is left unexplained, so it is strong but not complete.

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 ('Delete whole clips by id') and immediately distinguishes scope with the sibling ripple_delete_tool ('For a time range across tracks use ripple_delete_tool'). An agent can tell this apart from related clip/ripple tools without opening the schema.

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: clip_ids come from list_clips_tool, mode='gap' vs 'ripple' is defined with when to choose each, and time-range-across-tracks work is directed to ripple_delete_tool. The confirmation-path condition (needs_confirmation, then override_audio_checks=true) is spelled out.

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