ripple_delete_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose real, non-obvious behavior: the default inaudible option absorbs trailing quiet air to ~0.4s before the next word, and local snap can pull mid-silence bounds onto speech. This is valuable. However, for a destructive operation it never states the edit-application model (direct mutation vs staged/reversible via the history/revert siblings), what happens to downstream content, or the recovery path.

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, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second packs the essential parameter behavior plus a pointer to the sibling tool that should be used instead in a specific scenario. Domain jargon (punchline-to-pivot, local snap) is appropriate for the intended audience and 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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a destructive, multi-parameter tool with zero annotations, the description leaves gaps an agent needs to call it safely: the meaning/units of start and end, whether the ripple delete applies directly or goes through the edit-review pipeline (siblings like approve_edits_tool, history_undo, revert_applied_edit_tool suggest such a pipeline exists), and when to prefer the other cut/delete siblings. The description excels on the subtle parameter but is incomplete on scope and safety context.

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 use_inaudible_opt extremely well (default absorption behavior, when to pass false, interaction with handoff cuts), but says nothing about start and end — their units, coordinate format, or bounds are unspecified, which matters for a timeline range tool. project_path is inferable from its name. Compensation is partial: one of four parameters is clarified, the other three are not.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb (ripple-delete), a specific resource (timeline range), and a scope qualifier (across dialogue tracks). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ripple_delete_text_tool (text-based deletion) and cut_time_range_tool (cut without ripple semantics), so an agent can select it correctly 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?

The description gives explicit conditional guidance for the key decision: for punchline-to-pivot / leave-a-beat handoffs, call suggest_handoff_cut_tool first and pass use_inaudible_opt=false. This is genuinely actionable. However, it does not provide broader when/when-not guidance against the many other deletion siblings (cut_time_range_tool, strip_silence_tool, ripple_delete_text_tool), so the general tool-selection context is left to inference.

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