crop_audio_clip

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing specific behavioral nuances: 'Live may retain pre-loop playback material and creates a processed source,' and 'Selected interval is not a guarantee of exclusive source-file bounds.' It also mentions that it 'Binds audio and loop state and reads back native results,' providing a comprehensive picture of side effects and state changes. This is exemplary transparency.

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 composed of four sentences, each carrying meaningful information: the core action, preview behavior, retention/processing caveats, and state binding. It is dense but not verbose, front-loading the main purpose. Slightly technical jargon (e.g., 'pre-loop playback material') could be clearer, but overall it's concise and well-structured.

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 covers the essential aspects: planning vs. applying, preview output, potential retention of source material, creation of a processed source, the bounds caveat, and state binding. It does not detail return values or error conditions, but given the lack of an output schema and the presence of a clear two-step workflow (dryRun and confirmation) in the schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented with clear meanings (e.g., dryRun, confirmationToken, expectedStateVersion). The description adds little beyond what the schema provides; it references 'Plan or apply' which aligns with dryRun, but doesn't enrich parameter semantics further. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Plan or apply Live native cropping of one exact audio clip.' It specifies the resource (audio clip) and the action (crop), and distinguishes itself from other audio tools by mentioning 'native cropping' and 'one exact audio clip.' No ambiguity.

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 explains the two operating modes ('Plan or apply') and hints at a preview/report behavior, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to choose this over other clip-editing tools. Since there is no direct sibling crop tool, the lack of explicit alternatives is acceptable, but it still doesn't provide clear when-to-use guidance beyond its own purpose.

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