razor_all_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'razor all tracks' without explaining the cut position (e.g., at the playhead), whether the operation is destructive, or any side effects. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 description is a single sentence and is concise. The phrase 'expanded operation' adds little value, but it is not verbose. It is front-loaded with the key 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 no-argument tool, the description is too sparse. It omits crucial context such as whether an active sequence is required, whether it cuts at the current playhead, and what the impact is on the timeline. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool safely.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The schema trivially covers all parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 the verb 'razor' and the resource 'all tracks' to indicate a cut operation across all tracks, which is clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling tool 'razor_timeline_at_time' which likely performs a similar cut but at a specific time.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'razor_timeline_at_time' or 'split_clip'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active sequence, or any exclusions.

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