removeWords

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds the atomicity guarantee ('If any ID is missing, invalid, duplicated, already cut or ambiguous, nothing changes'), that the transcript is untouched, that consecutive words collapse into ONE trim including gaps, and the `cutTransitions` warning behavior. This is exactly the context the annotations do not carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and nearly every subsequent sentence adds distinct operational information (source of IDs, atomicity, result contents, warning payload). It is a dense, long run-on paragraph, but there is little pure filler; the length is justified by the absence of an output schema.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, ID sourcing, failure/atomicity semantics, what the result contains, and the cutTransitions warning in enough detail that an agent can invoke and interpret it without further 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 only 33% (only `projectId` is documented), so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines `wordIds` as IDs from getTranscriptWords numbered independently per asset, and fully explains `assetId` including the omission rule. It stops short of clarifying wordId format or ordering constraints, so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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 the spoken words selected by `wordIds` from getTranscriptWords out of the film,' and enumerates the intended cases (fillers, repeated/flubbed phrase, false start, duplicate take). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like removeTrim or removeClip, which operate on trims and clips rather than transcript words.

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?

Gives concrete usage rules: pass the same `assetId` as the read, omit it only when IDs are unique across all transcripts, and choose IDs yourself because 'the executor does not classify speech.' That tells the agent both how to call it and what not to expect, though it does not name an alternative tool for cases this tool cannot serve.

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