removeClip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real consequence detail beyond that: remaining clips close the gap and effects anchored to the clip are dropped. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is recoverable or whether a checkpoint (a sibling tool exists) should be created first, which would fully close the loop for a destructive mutation.

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, zero filler, with the destructive effect and the routing rule both front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey enough for correct invocation, and it does for the core action plus side effects. The main remaining gap is the source of clipId and whether removal is reversible, neither of which the schema supplies.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema (including the omit-for-open-project rule), but clipId carries only a minLength constraint. The description says deletion is 'by id' but never says where that id comes from or that it must reference a placed clip in the target project. Partial compensation for a half-documented schema.

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 ('Delete a placed clip by id') and immediately separates itself from the nearest sibling by naming setClipRange as the tool for shortening. An agent can distinguish it from removeMedia, removeWords, removeTrim, and removeClip-adjacent siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Use only when the user asks to remove a clip') paired with an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('to shorten one, use setClipRange'). This is the exact when/when-not/alternative pattern.

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