apply_silence_cuts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses non-destructive behavior ('new duplicate timeline, retaining the original'), a consent requirement, and data-loss risks ('does not guarantee preservation of fades, gain automation or all metadata'). This goes well beyond what the schema reveals.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main behavior, followed by necessary constraints and caveats. There is no filler; each sentence adds operational value.

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 scope, exclusions, approval requirements, and risk profile, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. The main gap is parameter mapping, but the meaning of the required marker_ids is reasonably inferable from the phrase 'selected cuts.'

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 0% and the description never names marker_ids or the optional name parameter. It vaguely connects to parameters via 'USER-ACCEPTED silence intervals' and 'selected cuts,' but doesn't explain what the IDs refer to, how approval is represented, or what the optional name controls. The agent is left to infer the required argument's meaning and format.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Remove USER-ACCEPTED silence intervals on a new duplicate timeline, retaining the original.' This clearly distinguishes it from review/silence tools like review_silence and from marker-editing tools like delete_marker, while also stating its non-destructive nature.

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?

It gives explicit applicability constraints: only an isolated normal-speed dialogue clip or one aligned video/audio pair, and explicitly rejects complex timelines, Fusion clips, changed timelines, and mixed frame rates. It also states the prerequisite of explicit user approval. It does not name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not conditions are strong.

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