insert_gap_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the mechanism (split + shift) and cautions about misuse, but does not mention side effects on adjacent clips, reversibility, or whether it affects other tracks. It provides partial transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a relevant caution. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description omits essential usage details such as parameter meanings, expected values, and output behavior. While it gives a clear purpose and a usage caveat, the lack of parameter documentation and behavioral specifics leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 explain parameters. It does not mention at_time, duration_sec, or project_path at all, leaving their semantics (e.g., units, format, requiredness) entirely to the agent's inference. This is a critical gap.

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?

The description states a clear action: 'Open pure silence on the timeline (split + shift)' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by warning against using it to fake a beat and pointing to suggest_handoff_cut_tool, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'Do not use to fake a beat after a tight handoff unless the user asks' and directs to an alternative tool. This clearly frames the appropriate context and exclusions.

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