trim_clip_edge_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 so: it explains exactly what ripple mode moves (all dialogue tracks, session-wide cuts), what gap mode leaves untouched, the clamping boundary (unused source between neighbouring clips), that the operation is undoable, and that overriding audio checks persists a recorded override. This is unusually complete 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 core action, then mode semantics, then override behavior. Dense but purposeful; the final paragraph on audio checks is somewhat separable but still earns its place by explaining the override path.

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?

For a 6-param mutation tool with an output schema (so return values needn't be explained), the description covers modes, cross-track side effects, clamping, undoability, and the override pathway. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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, and it defines `edge`, both `mode` values, `source_sec`'s unit, and `override_audio_checks` semantics. Only `project_path` is left undefined, a minor omission against otherwise thorough per-parameter meaning.

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 and resource — move one clip's `in` or `out` edge to `source_sec` — and explicitly equates it to the DAW trim handle (`TrimClipEdge`), distinguishing it from siblings like roll_clip_join_tool or split_clip_tool. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Names the trigger condition (the `evidence.fix` for a `speech_crosses_cut` hypothesis from `audition_context_tool`), spells out when to use each mode, and instructs to follow with `render_preview`. The alternative path (override_audio_checks) is explicitly described with its consequence.

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