removeTrim

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining what the operation reverses ('the cut is undone and that span plays/exports again'), clarifying the semantic effect rather than just the mutation. It doesn't mention reversibility of the removal itself or any confirmation/permission requirements, but the core behavioral effect is well conveyed.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the usage rule. No filler; every sentence carries distinct 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?

For a destructive single-parameter mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the effect and the routing. The one gap is the origin of trimRangeId, which is left implicit.

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 50%: projectId is well documented in the schema, while trimRangeId has no schema description. The description mentions 'by id' but does not state where trimRangeId comes from, unlike projectId which points to listProjects. It compensates only partially for the coverage gap.

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 trim range by id') and immediately clarifies the effect ('the cut is undone and that span plays/exports again'), which cleanly distinguishes it from addTrim, addTrims, and setTrim among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'This is how you remove a trim' and names the anti-pattern to avoid ('never re-add a trim to undo one'). This tells the agent both when to use this tool and what not to do instead of addTrim, which is exactly the sibling-confusion risk here.

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