trim_recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key non-destructive trait that a new file is saved and the original kept. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, failure modes (e.g., invalid range, missing recording), and whether the output format/codec is preserved, leaving material behavioral questions unanswered for a mutation tool.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the operation and range, followed immediately by the most important side effect (new file, original kept). No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details needn't be explained, and the non-destructive behavior is a useful addition. But for a 3-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, the description does not cover preconditions, validation rules, or recording_id semantics, so it is only adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the range bounds implicitly, but says nothing about recording_id, whether bounds are inclusive, units (seconds are implied by parameter names but not stated in the description), or validation such as start < end.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Cut a recording') plus the exact range semantics via '[start_seconds, end_seconds]'. It is clearly distinct from the lifecycle siblings (start/stop/pause/export), though it does not explicitly name an alternative or boundary case.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent can infer that this is for extracting a sub-range of an existing recording, but nothing clarifies prerequisites (e.g., must the recording be stopped first, does it need to be finalized) or relationships to siblings like export_gif.

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