smart_cut_hesitations

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions using transcript and energy gaps but fails to specify if the operation is destructive, requires particular permissions, or what the impact on the project is.

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, very concise, and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns or whether it modifies the project in place. Given the complexity of audio editing, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation for the parameters 'project_id' or 'aggressiveness'. It does not clarify the format of project_id or the valid range/meaning of aggressiveness, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 removes dead air and long fillers using transcript and energy gaps, specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'hesitations'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'plan_cuts' and 'apply_cut_plan' which handle different aspects of editing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_cuts' or 'apply_cut_plan'. The description does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or when not to use it.

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