propose_range_cut_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the cut leaves a hole with later clips keeping their places, that it never applies audio but creates a pending cut for host approval, that it is replay-safe, and that command_id should be reused only on retry of the same range. It does not cover error/permission behavior, hence not a 5.

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 purpose, then constraints in descending order of importance. The parenthetical asides add real value, though the text is slightly dense; nearly 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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the description covers the mutation semantics, defaults, and idempotency needed to call it correctly. Only the undocumented project_path and lack of auth/permission context keep it just below full completeness.

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 and largely does: start/end are timeline seconds, track_ids lists lanes with a default of every dialogue lane, and command_id reuse is scoped to retries of the same range. project_path is left undocumented, which is the only notable 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?

States a specific verb (propose), resource (exact range cut), and the domain framing (Studio range Cut for host review). It also names the sibling it is not (ripple_delete_tool), so the agent can differentiate without opening a 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 the agent: use ripple_delete_tool for a ripple cut across lanes, use this for an exact cut that leaves a hole. It also clarifies the approval flow (pending cut the host auditions and approves), giving clear when-to-use context.

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