delete_arrangement_clip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by noting 'deletion is undoable in Live' and that it preserves other timeline material, which goes beyond the annotation's generic destructive flag. It also highlights the confirmation requirement, adding operational context without contradicting the annotations.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the critical constraints (exactness, preservation, undoability) are stated succinctly. Every clause 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?

For a destructive tool with a safety mechanism, the description covers the core workflow (plan/delete), prerequisites, and undoability. It does not explicitly describe the dry-run/confirmation flow, but the schema descriptions for dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken fill that gap. With no output schema and 6 parameters, this is reasonably complete.

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 100% and each parameter has a descriptive comment. The description itself does not add extra meaning beyond the schema—it mentions 'clip identity' and 'confirmation' which map to clipId and confirmationToken, but the schema already explains these. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 verb 'delete' (and 'plan') with a specific resource 'one exact Arrangement clip', and adds the distinguishing constraint 'preserving other timeline material'. This separates it from siblings like delete_clip, move_arrangement_clip, and duplicate_arrangement_clip.

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 implies a two-phase workflow ('Plan or delete') and notes prerequisites ('Requires current clip identity and confirmation'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as delete_clip for session clips or when a dry run is mandatory. The 'Plan or delete' phrasing suggests when to use it, but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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