create_subclip

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, return value, or what happens to the original item. It does not indicate whether the operation is reversible or any special constraints. This is minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It conveys the essential purpose without any redundant or filler content. Every word serves a purpose.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters (4 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is thin. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites like valid project item, or implications of optional parameters. The overall context is under-specified for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and potential 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds a slight semantic layer by stating 'with specified in/out points,' which clarifies the role of startTime and endTime. However, it does not elaborate on optional parameters like takeAudio, takeVideo, or hasHardBoundaries, which are only described in the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline 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: 'Creates a subclip from a project item with specified in/out points.' It uses a specific verb ('creates') and resource ('subclip'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like create_subsequence and set_item_in_out by specifying the output is a subclip and the input is a project item with in/out points.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios or exclusions. The description implies usage through context (creating a subclip) but does not differentiate from create_subsequence or other related tools. Lack of alternatives or conditional criteria leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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