resolve_delete_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the default ripple behavior, that linked peers remain, and that a recovery copy is created. A slightly higher score would require more detail about the recovery copy lifecycle or confirmation of irreversibility, but these disclosures are already strong.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core purpose and key behaviors with no filler. The most important information, what the tool does, comes first, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral detail.

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 tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Behavioral coverage is good, but parameter ambiguity remains: a caller still does not know exactly how clip_index, track_type, and track_index identify the target clip. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds meaning only to the ripple parameter via 'defaults to non-ripple' and vaguely implies 'exactly one' relates to clip_index. It does not explain clip_index semantics, track_type values, or track_index addressing, leaving the agent to infer critical targeting details.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Delete exactly one clip,' which unambiguously identifies the operation and scope. Adding 'exactly one' distinguishes it from bulk operations, and no sibling tool overlaps with clip deletion, so the purpose is clear without needing to name alternatives.

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?

The description clearly frames when to use this tool: when a single clip needs to be deleted. It also notes the default non-ripple behavior, which gives context for typical usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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