split_clip_tool

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

It discloses useful behavior: the JSON multi-track path, fallback track-selection logic, and that it submits SplitAtTime on the document plane like Sharecut Studio blade. However, with no annotations, it leaves unstated whether the split is destructive, undoable, or how it affects existing edits on the timeline.

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?

The description is three short, focused sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The parameter guidance and implementation note each earn their place, and there is no filler 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?

The tool is adequately described for basic invocation, especially with an output schema available. Still, required parameter details such as at_time units and the effect on existing timeline state are missing, which is a meaningful gap given the absence of annotations.

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?

The description adds significant meaning for track_ids_json (a JSON array for multi-track cuts) and clarifies the precedence between track_ids_json, track_id, and speaker. However, with 0% schema coverage, it still does not clarify the format of at_time or the meaning of project_path beyond what the names imply.

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 'Split clip(s) at a timeline timecode' states a specific verb, object, and temporal reference. The mention of multi-track blade cuts and the document plane distinguishes it from text/range-based siblings like cut_text_match_tool and cut_time_range_tool.

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 provides clear operational context: when to pass track_ids_json for multi-track cuts and what happens when it is omitted, falling back to track_id/speaker or all dialogue tracks. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the usage context is clear.

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