paste_segment_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 well: it documents undoability, the exact ripple vs gap mutation semantics, reuse of the same clipboard, and the rejection behavior with paste_* error codes for unknown tracks/sources or impossible ranges. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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-loads the action and the two modes, then tacks on the error and undo guarantees. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding or repetition.

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, and the description covers mutation semantics, undo, and failure codes. The only notable gap is the undocumented project_path parameter, which an agent may need to supply in multi-project contexts.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains mode's two values with full semantics, what insert_at means (timeline seconds), and the clipboard's provenance and rejection conditions. project_path is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 ('Paste'), the resource (a copy_segment_tool clipboard), and the target position (insert_at timeline seconds). It also cleanly distinguishes itself from the copy_segment_tool sibling that produces the clipboard, and explains the two paste semantics.

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 contrasts mode='ripple' (opens duration on every dialogue track, then places extracts per track) with mode='gap' (overwrites the range on pasted tracks only, nothing moves). It doesn't state a decision rule for when to prefer one mode over the other, but the behavioral contrast is clear enough to choose well.

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