preview_inaudible_cut_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is non-destructive ('dry-run'), local, and approximate (~±80ms), which are important behavioral traits. It could say more about response contents or edge cases, but the key safety characteristic is clearly communicated.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core purpose appears first, and the exclusion/alternative guidance follows without redundancy. Every phrase 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 is complete for tool selection and high-level safety, and an output schema exists, but the 0% schema coverage plus no annotation context leaves optional parameters undefined. It is viable but not fully self-sufficient for correct invocation in all cases.

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 needed to compensate, but it only weakly implies that start and end define the proposed range. It gives no guidance on speaker, timeline, track_id, or project_path, leaving most parameters semantically ambiguous for an agent.

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 precise action and resource: a dry-run local inaudible-cut preview with a ~±80ms tolerance for a proposed range. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from suggest_handoff_cut_tool, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

This is exemplary: it says when to use the tool (dry-run preview for a proposed range) and when not to use it (multi-second narrative handoff planning), and it names the alternative tool with concrete use cases (leave-a-beat, clean-up-the-transition, punchline-to-pivot bounds).

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